Proceedings of I-KNOW ’04 Graz, Austria, June 30 - July 2, 2004
Introducing Technologies and Practices for Supporting Self-organized Learning in a Hybrid Environment Priya Sharma (The Pennsylvania State University, USA
[email protected])
Sebastian Fiedler (University of Augsburg, Germany
[email protected])
Abstract: Higher education is supposed to prepare its graduates to enter the workplace and apply and adapt their knowledge to the specific requirements of the setting. However, by adhering to traditional instructional models and to a view of learning that is very different from that required within the workplace, higher education fails to adequately prepare students to deal with rapid changes and emergent demands that require individuals to learn and adapt in situ and on the job. The advent of hybrid learning has allowed one mechanism for changing existing practices. Although hybrid environments can offer additional support for traditional instructional and learning methods, we think its potential lies in supporting new forms of learning and facilitation—specifically those related to self-organized learning and critical reflection—by using new types of technologies and tools. We would like to address the use of a specific kind of technology—personal Webpublishing systems (PWS)—to support this type of learning. In this paper, we present the reasoning behind the use of such technologies and describe the organization of a learning environment and identify the roles and structure of the face-to-face component and the online toolkits for supporting self-organized learning. We will also describe the new roles that facilitators and learners must adopt within these hybrid environments.
Keywords: personal Webpublishing, hybrid learning environments, self-organization in learning, weblogs, higher education Categories: H.4.3, H.5.4, J.4, K.3
1 Introduction Higher education is supposed to prepare its graduates to enter the workplace and apply and adapt their knowledge to the specific contextual requirements. The gap between student experiences in academic and workplace settings is, however, increasing steadily. While most of higher education still ascribes to traditional models of instruction and learning, the workplace is characterized by rapid changes and emergent demands that require individuals to learn and adapt in situ without the guidance of educational authorities. Higher education fails to adequately prepare its graduates to meet the challenges of the workplace for two primary reasons: first, traditional authoritative instructional
544
Sharma P. Fiedler S.: Introducing Technologies and Practices ...
models enforce a view that learning and teaching transactions should be planned and managed within a formal educational setting that is both time- and space-bound. Second, learning is equated with the accumulation of extensive bodies of important knowledge as defined by an "expert." In the first instance, more evidence accumulates each day that prescriptive instructional designs are unequal to the task of supporting the new forms and practices of learning required in the workplace [Brown, Duguid 1993]. In the second instance, the requirement is for learners and learning to move beyond purely content-driven to more reflective, critical, and process-aware practices of self-organized learning [Harri-Augstein, Thomas 1991], since "the received wisdom approach is inappropriate to the post-modern world which is characterized by rapid change rather than the application of well-established knowledge" [Shaw, Gaines 1996]. We use the term self-organized learning here as it has been proposed by [Harri-Augstein, Thomas 1991]: “Self-Organised Learning is the conversational construction, reconstruction and exchange of personal significant, relevant and viable meanings with awareness and controlled purposiveness” (p. 27). Although we don't suggest that all of higher education is similarly constrained, there is evidence that large pockets of academia continue to function within these traditional models. The advent of online learning and hybrid learning was largely assimilated into existing instructional models and educational philosophies. It has only to some extent functioned as a trigger to re-examine and modify existing practices. Hybrid learning and blended learning are used somewhat synonymously to refer to specific educational and training situations, where different instructional strategies and delivery mechanisms are combined for most effective instruction (see for example [Masie 2002], [Reinmann-Rothmeier 2003]). Although hybrid learning is increasing in popularity within corporations, its use is mostly obscure in established higher education settings, the most important reasons being the established tradition of educational practice and the slow pace of institutional change. However, in both cases much of hybrid learning seems to be constrained by the “trivialization of technology” [Salomon 2002]—where technology becomes integrated into current instructional practices and loses its vigor and potential.
2 Using Hybrid Learning for Supporting New Forms of Learning and Higher Education Although hybrid learning environments can offer additional support for traditional instructional and learning methods, we need to go beyond this approach if we want to explore the potential of information and communication technologies for the support of new, alternative forms of learning environment design and the facilitation of selforganized learning. By extending the learning context with new infrastructures for communication and information flow, hybrid environments could support a combination of structured and unstructured learning interactions, support exploration of individual and group interests simultaneously and perhaps provide a mechanism for individual and groups to explore their conversational learning and knowing processes beyond the acquisition and accumulation of pre-defined bodies of knowledge. Such exploration can form a conduit for individuals to take control of their own learning in practice [Schön 1987].
Sharma P. Fiedler S.: Introducing Technologies and Practices ...
545
2.1 Introducing Personal Webpublishing Technologies for Hybrid Environments Very often, hybrid learning environments simply refer to the use of course management tools (CMSs) such as Blackboard, WebCT, or other customized software, in addition to face-to-face sessions. Although CMSs can offer many administrative and dissemination advantages, the design of such systems closely anticipates and controls the instructional environment through the use of centralized architectures and fails to meet the requirements mentioned earlier. These environments do not directly support the type of architecture required for more openended, self-organized activities that are necessary for the conversational construction and reconstruction of meaning. [Fischer, Scharff 1998] argue from a similar perspective: "Creating computational environments in support of self-directed learning prohibits designers from completely anticipating and determining the use context (as is done in intelligent tutoring systems), because the context is only partially known at design time" (p. 6). They also proposed some design heuristics for the computational support of what they call “selfdirected learning”; for example that these systems ought to be user-directed, supportive, open-ended, and they should "provide means for significant modification, extension, and evolution by users" (p. 5). In addition such systems should also support a range of expertise and promote collaboration. The emergent tools and practices of personal and collaborative Webpublishing, which include authoring and publishing tools such as Weblogs and Wikis, content syndication tools such as RSS readers [Downes 2002], and a growing number of specialized tracking services, offer a toolkit for the learning environment designer that is much better suited to meet the design heuristics for supporting self-direction and self-organization. We want to argue that it is not only possible, but also potentially even more powerful to support self-organization and self-direction in learning within higher educational settings through the systematic implementation of personal Webpublishing tools and practices [Fiedler 2003]. However, the integration of such systems and practices in higher education requires different organization of the learning environment, a different facilitator role, and different learner roles. In the remainder of our paper, we will describe the organization of a hybrid learning environment based on personal and collaborative Webpublishing tools and practices and identify the roles and structure of the face-to-face component and the online toolkits for supporting self-organized learning. We will also describe the new roles that facilitators and learners must adopt within these hybrid environments. 2.2 The Design of a Hybrid Environment to Support Self-Organized Learning The advantage of a hybrid environment is its ability to support different modes of communication and interaction—copresent (or face-to-face) and asynchronous. [Boden, Molotch 1994] identify copresence as being essential to the performance of a wide range of crucial tasks. Copresence allows participants within a setting to interpret and engage in rich, meaning-laden interactions, and quickly navigate between several unconstrained areas of conversation. Face to face modes of communication can support adaptive student-student interaction and also support embodied teaching [McWilliam, Taylor 1998] and learning experiences. In contrast, online technologies can support more individualized, delayed, and asynchronous
546
Sharma P. Fiedler S.: Introducing Technologies and Practices ...
documentation, reflection, and commentary. Learners can assume responsibility for pace of learning and also engage in more deliberate, reflective, exploratory, and evaluative learning activities. In supporting self-organized learning, we consider face-to-face interaction and personal and collaborative Webpublishing as equally integral to the learning process. Wepublishing tools can be used to augment more deliberate and constrained modes of documentation, artifact collection, and reflection, while face-to-face interactions are critical for augmenting meaning-making and unconstrained dialogues. Webpublishing tools exhibit many of the characteristics of computational support for self-organized learning as identified by [Fischer, Scharff 1998]. First, they are content independent, thus they allow for individual customization and usage. In addition, Webpublishing systems can be augmented by a wide variety of tools that provide increasingly sophisticated methods and means for users to find, document, evaluate, and report information. Thus, the systems are amenable to modification, extension, and evolution by the learners. In addition, the inherently public and conversational nature of the tools promotes and actively supports collaboration and efforts to nurture mutual understanding. To support learners in this type of learning, we suggest a gradual and deliberate introduction of Webpublishing tools within the learning environment. We see three somewhat distinct and progressive stages in the combined use of these technologies and face-to-face interaction. The first stage is largely concerned with initiating learners into the concepts and practices of Webpublishing and establishing a ‘buy-in’ from all concerned stakeholders. The explication of a viable conceptual framework underlying this practice is, we believe, critical to the success of learners’ engagement. [Candy 1991] and [Harri-Augstein, Thomas 1991] suggest that learners are generally unaware of how they attribute meaning to various encounters and artifacts in their daily life. Explicating the role of Webpublishing in contributing to a collection of artifacts and reflective records that will allow learners to review their own learning is essential to initiating and sustaining the practice. Simultaneously, technical training on the basic features of Webpublishing tools is also an essential activity. This may include, at the very least, an introductory session on basic Webpublishing features and tools led by an expert facilitator. Depending on the skill and ability of learners, this session may serve to help orient learners in performing some of the more routine and common tasks. During this first stage, we recommend providing more structured and finite tasks to establish the routine and practice of the tools. In the second stage, learners should begin to use the tools to explore their own interests and topics. Individual weblogs can be structured with content-based categories to support the process of reflection and organization. Thus, depending on a specific learner’s needs, appropriate placeholders can be established to support his exploration and documentation. During this second stage, too, establishing some form of mutually negotiated output may be very helpful in sustaining learners’ reflective efforts. At this point, face-to-face interaction becomes a venue for shared recording of experiences related to the students’ emerging practices and processes. Copresent interaction thus becomes a supportive forum for expanding and reflecting on individual practices and reflections in a group setting. Often, face-to-face interaction also becomes a means to integrate and elaborate on the different threads of conversation that emerge within the group. Toward, the end of this stage, we suggest
Sharma P. Fiedler S.: Introducing Technologies and Practices ...
547
providing learners with the option to customize and assume more responsibility for their own reflective spaces. In the third stage, we would recommend that learners create their own structures and templates for Webpublishing and that they assume gradual responsibility for customization of the environment. At this point, learners should also be encouraged actively to examine and expand their toolkits and processes to identify the best practices for their particular purpose. As the simplest example, a learner may choose to integrate RSS feeds and newsreaders to hasten exploration and evaluation of a multitude of content. However, learner selection of individual tools to support this processes should be encouraged and actively supported. Thus, the key at this stage is to actively transfer control of the environment and processes to the learners. 2.2.1 The Facilitator’s Role Apart from the technical imperatives of the facilitator's role, the pedagogical engagement also becomes different. Instead of taking on the role of the omniscient teacher [Bruner 1996], the facilitator acts as a 'reflector' in supporting learners' purposes and goals. Instead of offering directive guidance at all times, this mode of interaction suggests that facilitators must learn to appropriately scaffold learners’ ability to evaluate and seek individually appropriate solutions. Instead of being only a teacher, the facilitator actively assumes the role of a learning coach [Harri-Augstein, Thomas 1991] wherein the goal is to actively help learners to identify learning methods and processes according to individual needs and perceptions [Gibbs 1991]. According to [Harri-Augstein, Thomas 1991], “the role of the Learning Coach or Tutor is to systematically overhaul the learner’s undernourished inner conversation by pulling this out in terms of public exchange and making this process very explicit. This externalization of the conversation makes it available for review and development” (p. 97). In addition to scaffolding learning processes, the facilitator’s role includes feeding the overall system with information, with a focus on creating deliberate perturbations for the learners that lead to amplification or clarification of specific issues. In some sense, the facilitator becomes a type of filter for information but he or she does not actively prescribe any particular interactions with content. Thus, the learners are still largely responsible for meaning-making and learning activities in the context of some directed items of information. The shift from controlling instruction to supporting learning also requires the facilitator to organize learning goals and accountability in a different manner. Ideally, facilitator and learner would jointly establish individual learning goals, processes, and deadlines that fit with learner needs. This assures learner buy-in and input and accountability becomes a more meaningful measure of progress in relation to the learner’s own goals. In this context, for example, the frequency and volume of documentation of artifacts and reflections can be established with an eye for supporting the learner’s ultimate goals. Similarly, interaction between peers in the community of practice can be linked directly to information and learning needs. Thus, the facilitator becomes the mediator—from both a technical learning environment design perspective, as well as a pedagogical perspective—for ensuring appropriate information flows and accountability for the individual learners as well as the group as a whole.
548
Sharma P. Fiedler S.: Introducing Technologies and Practices ...
2.2.2 The Learner’s Role in a Community of Learners Modeled after the open, distributed, non-hierarchical and rather loose collaborations and content flows that can be found in the realm of personal Webpublishing practices such as Weblog authoring [Paquet 2002], all learners are expected to engage with the overall learning environment on equal terms with each other and the facilitator. They all become nodes of a dynamic information routing and filtering network, adding various kinds of input, such as comments, elaborations, observations, and reflections that are either expressions of their own meaning making activities or reactions to other people’s externalizations. Ideally a new level of transparency emerges as thinking and working become observable to all participants and the global community. Thus learners are encouraged to draw on specialists and significant others from outside the formal educational environment. Integrating these distributed sources of information and alternative perspectives becomes an ongoing activity. If learners remain passive recipients and consumers, they automatically impoverish the quality of the overall environment, thus decreasing the potential to carry out collective and individual meaning construction. Once learners have gained an adequate level of mastery they can easily design their own content flows and feedback loops using essentially the same services and techniques that have been used by the facilitators and designers right from the start. In that respect they become co-designers of the learning environment that had been “seeded” earlier on.
3 Conclusions and Recommendations In this paper, we describe a possible organization of a hybrid, learning environment to support self-organized learning in higher education. However, we realize that a number of barriers exist to the implementation of such environments and we conclude by identifying some of the most common technological and personal obstacles that might need to be overcome in the establishment of such an environment. In general, Webpublishing technology has emerged as a relatively robust environment for documenting and archiving information. Cohort tools and technologies continue to develop at a rapid pace and investigating the utility of these various tools is contingent on time and technical expertise. Although basic practices and technologies of Webpublishing are accessible to a wide audience, the development of more sophisticated practices of information retrieval, evaluation, and archival—especially in the context of self-organized learning goals—may require a heavy investment of effort in technological exploration, which may form a significant barrier for larger groups of learners, especially those who are hesitant about their technical skills. In terms of the culture of the learning environment, we presuppose two types of possible barriers. It is likely that facilitators who do not ‘buy-in’ to this concept of learning will find it difficult to move from being the centre of the instructional environment to the periphery of the learning process. In such a case it is possible for facilitators to refrain from completely engaging in the process and even to discourage learners from taking the changed rules seriously [Potts 1981]. At the same time, the technological and time investment required of even willing and seasoned facilitators may result in less than optimal design of and interaction within the learning environment. This interaction design is further complicated by the lack of
Sharma P. Fiedler S.: Introducing Technologies and Practices ...
549
empirical data on design and processes within hybrid environments for self-organized learning. Learners used to traditional models of instruction may find it jarring to assume control and accountability for their own learning. The intentions and prior self-conceptions of the learner within an educational setting can significantly impact individual learning as well as learning within the group of peers [Boud, Keogh, Walker 1985]. Thus, aligning learners’ needs with group and individual goals requires extra effort and willingness from facilitator and learners alike. These examples are some of the common and perhaps most self-evident barriers to the development and sustenance of such hybrid learning environments. However, given the importance of self-organized learning in the current knowledge economy, we believe that these barriers can be reduced to manageable proportions by using design-based research and gathering empirical evidence for the design and sustenance of such learning environments.
References [Boden, Molotch 1994] Boden, D., Molotch, H. L.: “The compulsion of proximity” In: R. Friedland, D. Boden (Eds.), NowHere: Space, time, and modernity, UCLA press, Berkeley, CA (1994). [Boud, Keogh, Walker 1985] Boud, D., Keogh, R., Walker, D.: “Reflection: Turning experience into learning”; Kogan Page, London (1985). [Brown, Duguid 1993] Brown, J. S., Duguid, P.: “Stolen Knowledge”; Educational Technology, 33, 3 (1993), 10-15. [Bruner 1996] Bruner, J.: “The culture of education”; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1996). [Candy 1991] Candy, P. C.: “Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice”; Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1991). [Downes 2002] Downes, S.: “An introduction to RSS for educational designers”; electronic version http://www.downes.ca/files/RSS_Educ.htm/November-2002online. [Fiedler 2003] Fiedler, S.: “Personal Webpublishing as a reflective conversational tool for self-organized learning” In: T. N. Burg (Ed.), BlogTalks. Cultural Research, Wien (2003). [Fischer, Scharff 1998] Fischer, G., Scharff, E.: “Learning technologies in support of self-directed learning”; Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 98, 4 (1998). [Gibbs 1991] Gibbs, G.: “Teaching students to learn: A student centered approach”; Open University Press, Milton Keynes (1991). [Harri-Augstein, Thomas 1991] Harri-Augstein, E. S., Thomas, L. F.: “Learning conversations: The self-organized learning way to personal and organizational growth”; Routledge (1991). [Masie 2002] Masie, E.: “Blended learning: The magic is in the mix”; In: A. Rossett (Ed.), The ASTD e-learning handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York (2002).
550
Sharma P. Fiedler S.: Introducing Technologies and Practices ...
[McWilliam, Taylor 1998] McWilliam, E., Taylor, P. G.: “Teacher im/material: Challenging the new pedagogies of instructional design”; Educational Researcher, 27, 8 (1998). [Paquet 2002] Paquet, S.: “Personal knowledge publishing and its uses in research”; electronic version http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/stories/2002/10/03/personalKnowledgePublishin gAndItsUsesInResearch.html/2002-online. [Potts 1981] Potts, D.: “One-to-one learning”; In: D. J. Boud (Ed.), Developing student autonomy in learning. Kogan Page, London (1981). [Reinmann-Rothmeier 2003] Reinmann-Rothmeier, G.: “Didaktische Innovation durch Blended Learning”; Huber, Bern (2003). [Salomon 2002] Salomon, G.: “Technology and Pedagogy: Why Don't We See the Promised Revolution?”, Educational Technology, 42, 2 (2002), 71-75. [Schön 1987] Schön, D. A.: “Educating the reflective practitioner”; Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1987). [Shaw, Gaines 1996] Shaw, M. L. G., Gaines, B. R.: “Experience with the learning Web”; electronic version http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/articles/LearnWeb/EM96Exp/1996-online.
