Next Generation E-Learning: Enabling the Creation of Effective Information Technology Mediated Educational Programs N.S. Alexandrov, R. Ramirez, V.N. Alexandrov, P. Ramsay, R. Jamieson, A. Haffegee, A. Al-Khalifah, D. Johnson, I.M. Bhana, G. Espindola, E. Larsen ACET Centre, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, P.O. Box 225, Reading, UK
Key words: meta-model, pedagogy, collaborative learning, m-learning, virtual-reality, profiling, virtual organization Abstract: In this paper we give an overview of next generation e-learning. We present all the components starting with the meta-model, further outlining the set of educational models within the framework of our meta-model and how these link to the technology in order to be implemented efficiently and to achieve the stated learning objectives . We further describe third set of components which are of equal importance: the organization and management. We describe how e-portfolio and Virtual Organizations approach can be used in combination with advanced pedagogy and technology to deliver efficient e-learning. We will give examples drawn from our current research project and MSc programs showing the efficiency of our approach.
1 Introducing the Meta-model In this paper we describe a new meta-model that enables creating effective information technology mediated education programs, work carried out in enabling these programs through innovative technology and some of the resulting issues surrounding management of learning [1].
Fig 1. The Educational Framework 1
The meta-model is based on recent scientific findings in the fields of neurology, cognitive psychology and evolutionary psychology that throw a very strong insight about how e-learning and education in general should be viewed and implemented. This framework, which we have developed and also used in E-LANE project [5], has the five components shown in figure 1. 1.1. Knowledge Domain This not only describes the knowledge which we desire students to acquire, but also certain different skills which can be cognitive, affective and motor. For example, cognitive skills enable students to correctly mentally organize knowledge so that it can be selected and used effectively, to differentiate or induce knowledge such that it can be applied in different contexts, or to integrate knowledge or deduce knowledge so it can be restructured to fit new situations. When information technology is involved, other skills will be acquired by students such as ability to work in different scenarios with different types of information, the possibility to use different information channels to interpret phenomena, ability to communicate synchronously and asynchronously, ability to take responsibility in decision making, ability to refine information selection criteria, etc. 1.2. Educational Subjects It indicates the nature and origins of students and teachers and the relationship between them. It is important to recognize the age group, academic background and other culture related information about students. Effective learning is achieved when the process is focused on student’s interests, culture and environment, and when new knowledge and skills is constructed upon a well identified academic base. 1.3. Contexts and Environments They establish the variables the make-up the virtual learning space. The same knowledge domain may be taught to different people with different culture, in different locations with different resources, and at different times with different emphasis, by different teachers with different types of communication. Thus the analysis of contexts tries to identify those variables and how they affect learning in order to be able to reuse as much as possible the already developed activities and materials and to make the learning process more effective. Once those variables are identified, old activities and materials may be used, or new ones may be developed. Contexts are very important, as the most effective materials and activities are those that focus on the student’s background, interests, culture and environment. 1.4. Educational Processes In general, it identifies the activities that must be carried out by students in order to acquire skills and knowledge. Those activities are usually designed following certain philosophies such as conductism, cognitivism and constructivism. They take into account the knowledge domain, student’s background and learning contents. Those activities may be such as searching, reading, viewing videos, hearing audio, dialog and discussion, drill and practice, problem solving, research, quiz solution, etc. They are structured in such a way that students progress from simple to complex knowledge and skills, to knowledge creation. They are varied enough so students can use different channels to acquire knowledge depending on the inner workings of their brain and body. Also, different paths can be taken in order to achieve learning goals. Constant feedback and evaluation is carried out, and different students may achieve learning objectives at different speed. Learning can be a self-directed experience where the teachers role is more that of a tutor than that of an authority. 2
In such a relation, students have a large degree of control on their learning and power is more balanced with that of the teacher. On the other hand, learning can be a much directed experience, as in more traditional learning. In this case, teachers have most of the control of the learning process as well as most of the power. This type of learning relationship does have the advantage of giving teachers the possibility to closely monitor student’s progress and thus turn to more personalized learning, which has proven to be very effective. 1.5. Digital Content Also based on the knowledge domain, student’s background and the learning context, digital contents are closely tied to the educational processes for basic learning activities are carried out using the digital contents. Digital contents must endeavor to target as many communications channels as possible as well as students’ different intelligence capacities such as linguistic, visual, kinesthetic, musical, logical-mathematic, interpersonal, etc. Digital contexts vary according to the type of knowledge they support; conceptual, contextual and procedural. For example, we can use graphics and 3D animations to show the meaning of certain concepts and the relation between entities and components. We can use video and audio to show procedures. We can use interactive simulations to help understand how different environments modify a system’s behavior under certain contexts, etc. But digital contents not only need to support knowledge acquisition, but also cognitive skills, attitudes and values. This can be done by showing different scenarios and different outcomes to carefully planned hypothetic situations and by promoting conversation, argument, debate and discussion. The above meta-model and framework enables to translate the high level meta-model descriptions to much more detailed models: Educational model, Learner model, Instructor model, Technology platform model, Implementation model, Content development model, Course Design model, Education model and Evaluation model. In this way we can translate the high level descriptions to detailed but yet parameterized descriptions and implementations. Concrete examples this approach from our existing educational programs and e-learning projects will be given.
2 Enabling Technology At the ACET Centre based at the University of Reading (UK), advanced learning technologies are being developed that benefit the educational meta-model. Some of these technologies encompass virtual reality, peer-to-peer computing, and mobile technology. 2.1. Immersive Virtual Reality for Learning There are promising benefits that VR can bring to the educational framework. The ability to view scenes in a 3D format is an advantage. Additionally, the possibility to interact and manipulate objects in a 3D scene makes this visualization technique powerful and extends the boundaries of the whole Educational Framework. VR can improve the learning process in the following ways:
Strengthens motivation. Virtual worlds provide an engaging experience to end users by entirely immersing the student cognitively and effectively in the VE.
3D-interaction. Interaction with the virtual objects is more intuitive and realistic as students can manipulate and interact with VOs in a natural way.
Supports individual learning styles. While permitting students to explore their surroundings it would increase their understanding of concepts and procedures. Knowledge will be based 3
on their direct personal experience.
Complexity levels. The virtual world can be programmed in such a way as to provide the users with different levels of complexity. This can be achieved by offering pop-ups or help tips that could be used be the students to successfully complete their task. The system could also automate some procedures at the very start enabling the students to concentrate on others and as the student moves form one level to the next degree of complexity can be increased or the amount of help could be minimized.
Real-world modelling. VR has the possibility of offering educators with the ability to simulate conditions where it would be dangerous, difficult, or costly to educate students in real world environments.
Local or distance learning. VR could be used or may be expanded across different boundaries including those of time and distance. Students can work and collaborate distributively from remote areas.
Monitoring and assessment. Performance monitoring as a critical educational tool can be easily integrated with virtual educational settings.
Immersive systems also provide several of features and characteristics that can enhance the education process including:
Presence and Immersiveness. It provides the user with the highest sense of presence and immersion by displaying physical images at realistic sizes enabling better visualization and investigation. These systems would be suitably used where 3D spatial reasoning is required by permitting the end user to change his/her view point and also by enabling him to manipulate and orient the object for a clearer understanding.
Multi-user. The ability for more than one user to participate in interactions and discussions.
Immersion. Users can feel a sense of presence inside the CAVE-like display.
Collaboration. More than one user can participate in a CAVE-like session. This is beneficial when mutual discussions are needed. 3-D viewing: true 3D images can be viewed from different angles.
Scale. Due to the size of the immersive display the physical scale of images can be large enough for better visualization and investigation [2, 1].
The ACET Centre carried out a study on whether learning in 3D immersive VEs benefits the learning process. The study involved presenting a test subject with three different methods of learning about the human anatomy. The three methods were using a 2D desktop display, using a 2D desktop display with a 3D immersive system for 2 users to collaboratively learn, and finally a single user in a 3D immersive system. These are illustrated in figures 2, 3 and 4.
4
Fig. 2. 2D desktop session
Fig. 3. 3D immersive & desktop session (collaborative)
Fig 4. 3D immersive session (stand-alone) Following the learning tasks posed to the test subjects, they were asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding their experiences. The results have shown that the users preferred using the 3D type of virtual environment over the 2D environment. Therefore this study indicates that the visualization and simulation do enhance the learning process, however there is still room for traditional methods to be used in conjunction with the new methods. Some users did comments that better manipulation and navigation within the virtual environment could have been provided. These issues can be addressed in any future work to be carried out. 5
2.2. Learning Anywhere with P2P and Mobile Technology At the ACET Centre a collaborative computing platform, Coco, that builds on peer-to-peer and mobile technology is in development. Coco can be utilised for learning as it provides synchronous and asynchronous collaboration services, and a knowledge management system [3]. Mobile technology benefits educational framework in the following ways:
Pervades learning activity. By complementing computer-based learning with access to resources and services from mobile devices, learning no longer needs to be confined to the classroom or home.
Increases efficiency in learning. Without the restrictions of desktop PCs restricting learning to times when access to a PC is possible, learning can occur whilst on the move allowing a learner to more efficiently utilise their time.
Empowers learners. Mobile devices are inherently personal. This means that whatever service is enabled on a learner's mobile device brings this service closer to them and makes the service more available. Mobile learning services therefore empower learners by giving them the freedom to learn whenever and wherever they like.
Distance learning. Through widespread connectivity available is populated areas mobile devices can enable distance learning to be carried out. Content can be delivered and services accessed via WiFi, GPRS and 3G networks removing the learner's confinement to a classroom or even home.
Real-world interaction. Removing the constraints of the classroom or home allows learners to have richer real-world experiences. Learning materials that compliment actual experience can therefore be used, and interaction with the real world may allow learners to gather data directly though using a mobile device's media gathering capabilities such as built-in digital cameras and audio recording.
Spontaneous learning. In cases where a learner may need on-demand information, mobile technology and connectivity can immediately serve spontaneous information requests. A learner need not wait until they are at a desktop PC to search for information on the Internet or other knowledge base.
Spontaneous collaboration. Most mobile learning facilities only consider content delivery. However mobile devices are rapidly increasing in capability and many are perfectly capable of consuming and providing more complex services including enabling collaboration. Mobile learners can collaborate with each other and with desktop learners.
By building on peer-to-peer network technology we additionally account for the following beneficial features:
Scalability. Peer-to-peer networks are highly scalable due to the completely decentralized nature of the service provision. The scalability does not rely on any one set of hardware and removes bottlenecks where many users may be trying to access a service through one service provider.
Robustness. As peer-to-peer networks are decentralized, there is no single point of failure 6
since the service provision is replicated across the network. Therefore if any one peer providing a service becomes unavailable, there is enough redundancy in the network to still access a service. This robustness means that peer-to-peer networks are also highly resilient to denial-of-service attacks.
Ad-hoc network formation. Since peer-to-peer networks do not rely on any centralized service provision, networked services can be accessed spontaneously.
Through content delivery mechanisms, collaborative learning can occur in the form of resource/document commenting, reflection and annotation. Community networks allows for spontaneous and situational learning though searching for and communicating with people with similar interests, for example at a conference. Spontaneous group formation also allows for realtime organisation and support for learning tasks in small, close-knit ad-hoc teams. Coco supports these use-cases through provision of a suite of applications that include instantmessaging, shared whiteboard, shared Web-browser, and knowledge management with collaborative metadata annotation capabilities, a screenshot of which is shown in figure 5.
Fig 5. Screenshot of the Coco application suite (desktop version) This application suite is targeted at a range of devices, from desktops to mobile phones, by building on Java technology. The Coco architecture is also designed to allow developers to quickly and easily produce custom software solutions.
3 Management Issues The ACET Centre tackles management issues that may arise when considering the educational meta-model. These issues encompass increasing the accessibility of education for non-traditional learners, such as distance, evening and part-time students and the ACET Centre has considered the major factors that affect e-learning students and why do they drop out from e-learning courses and proposes a two step processes for managing the non-traditional student population: Initial profiling and ePortfolio assessment. The ACET Centre has also considered Virtual Learning Organizations 7
(VLO) using technology to support between geographically distant locations, and has analyzed the process of capturing requirements for creating such organizations. 3.1. Profiling Profiling provides a powerful tool that enables students to know precisely where they stand and to provide real time inputs to dramatically improve their performances. The implementation of profiling provides an extensive, dynamic and comparative understanding of a student’s strengths and weaknesses, helping the students to better understand their own learning profile. The comparative learning profile can emerge from this process – that is extensive, dynamic and comparative – of the student’s population in the country. By profiling E-learning students, universities can analyse their progress throughout the year, the students themselves can be on top of their own performance and progress on different Learning Objects [4] throughout the year and they can develop their own learning patterns. There is a great deal of testing that can be carried out to see the efficiency of using e-learners profiling. While some researchers argue that it is important for educational research to focus on learner perceptions and not solely on evaluation of pedagogic or institutional goals, others emphasize that pedagogic design of the learning context also influences whether or not students learn. In order to achieve a qualification, the student will need to complete an assessment. This does not necessarily mean a written exam, and it could be an online test taken using a computer or even a practical work based project. We have argued that research into online learning needs to take account of the diversity of learners, their learning environments and how these two interact, however my aim is profiling the diversity of the learners so that they can get what is best for them out of the course. E-learning can be a flexible and cost-effective alternative to classroom learning, but it can also be a colossal waste of time and money if not implemented correctly. The reasons why some E-learning projects go down in flames while others flourish are varied. There are those who attribute the problems to lack of student motivation. Others point to poor course material, learning time restrictions or the human fear of unfamiliar learning environments. At some level these arguments are all relevant, but they are only symptoms of a greater problem. When E-learning initiatives fail, it is often because there is no connection between learning materials and students interests. To be successful, it must be tied directly to tangible outcomes. Students know the reasons for getting into E-learning and what they expect to do when they finish studying. To ensure that this critical connection between student’s needs/interests and content, we do profiling where all the material is available and the students get to choose their own course material. Profiling is cost effective, non-intrusive and replaces ineffective evidence gathering tools such as paper-based logbooks. 3.2. E-Portfolio Based Assessment E-Portfolios are personalized web collections where students have the opportunity to make their skills and competences understood and can be described as “a process of continuous reflection and collaborative analysis of learning” (Zubizaretta 2004). These web collections include coursework, extra curricular activities, life experience and many more work of art. The development of an ePortfolio enables the students to become more in touch with their own objectives, reassess their 8
career goals using their own reflection and response/feedback from others to get a better perception of their current knowledge, skills and growth. It also allows universities to develop better quality education and individualized learning skills [6] [7] [8]. The increase in the use of e-Portfolios is associated with the fact that it has a beneficial purpose not only for students but for universities and lecturers. According to David DiBiase from the eEducation Institute in Penns State’s College of Earth and Minerals we can classify the benefits of using e-Portfolio as follows:
The students can benefit by improving learning effectiveness, boosting information technologies skills and gaining credit for learning beyond the classroom.
The universities can benefit by being able to influence in the students stimulus, give useful advice and being able to administer students’ deliverables through e-learning.
e-Portfolios exhibit the students performance throughout the course and enables the students to track their own work over time [9]. However, there are some problems encountered on implementing e-Portfolios, such as the requirement of too much time to create, maintain and evaluate it, hence lack of motivation; the difficulty of reliable evaluation, cyber-plagiarism, privacy and free speech [10] [11]. To be able to develop such challenging system students need motivation, and that is achieved by assessing e-Portfolio for accumulation of credits towards their degree. By being able to accumulate credits towards a degree the students not only get the benefits of having an e-Portfolio but also allows the students to fit into what best suits him, at the appropriate level, allowing the universities to reduce disparities and inequalities between individuals. 3.3. Capturing User Requirements for Virtual Learning Organizations It is important to consider the actors and their experience of the VLO when designing a technological solution to support the core learning function. Actors in the Virtual Learning Organization bring to the environment their own set of expectations and without the social understanding fostered by physical proximity and cultural similarity the complexity of performing the collaborative work increases. The Director and MSc Coordinator of ACET Centre lead the MSc in Network and e-Business Centred Computing (NeBCC). The corresponding VLO has been developed as part of the ERASMUS MUNDUS scheme [12]. This program also involves Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTh), University Carlos III Madrid (UC3M) and Trinity College Dublin (TCD). The program completed the teaching section for the first intake of students in July 2006 and is preparing for a second intake of students in October 2006. Currently we use Blackboard to facilitate the communication and certain functionalities required for our VLO. Several questionnaires and interviews were developed to capture the necessary information / requirements / system capabilities from the point of view of the students. Further questionnaires are under development for professors/lecturers and administrators. The methodology used and some preliminary results would be presented. Participants should be able to operate independently within the parameters of the VLO, irrespective of location, without causing a conflict of interests or breach of protocol for any of the participating parties. Visibility, Communication and Collaboration are identified as the three key drivers of autonomous operation as shown in the figure below.
9
Fig. 6. The autonomous Virtual Learning Organization The above approach will be presented in further detail on the Workshop.
4 Conclusion In this paper we have given an overview of next generation e-learning. Our approach has much flexibility since it integrates the tree important components: the pedagogy, technology and organizational and management components. We have presented our meta-model, which gives high level description and how this meta-model and the corresponding framework enables to translate this high level description to much more detailed one through set of educational models. We further showed how these models can be linked and implemented using different technologies such as Virtual Reality and P2P in order to realize our learning objectives. We further outlined how the organizational and management components are linked to the pedagogy and technology and described how e-portfolio and Virtual Organizations approach can be used in combination with advanced pedagogy and technology to deliver efficient elearning. We gave examples drawn from our current research project and MSc programs showing the efficiency of our approach.
References: [1] Alexandrov, N. S., Alexandrov V. N., Ramirez-Velarde, R. V., Aristizábal M., Corrales, M.E.,: E-LANE Educational Model, version 7, 05/2006 [2] Al-Khalifah, A., McCrindle, R.J.: Student Perceptions of Virtual Reality as an Education Medium, EDMedia 2006 (World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications), Orlando, Florida. 26-30 June, 2006. [3] I.M. Bhana, D. Johnson: Knowledge Management for Collaborative Learning, Proc. of the Interactive Computer-aided Learning 05 conference, Villach, Austria, 2005 th [4] Ip, A., Young, A., Morrison, I.: Learning Objects – Whose are they?, Proceedings of the 15 Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications ISBN 0-473-08747-2 Pages 315-320 [5] www.e-lane.org [6] EuroPortfolio: http://www.europortfolio.org [7] ePortfolio Australia, n.d. [8] e-Portfolio @ LaGuardia Community College: http://www.eportfolio.lagcc.cuny.edu [9] http://www.danwilton.com/eportfolios/types.php [10] http://portfolio.psu.edu/build/index.html [11] Rubens, W., Heinze, O.: Portfolio as a tool for academic education and professional development: problems and challenges, Institute of Education, Utrecht University. [12] Eurpoean Communities , ERASMUS MUNDUS, http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/munsus/index_en.html, 2005 nd [13] Katz, D., Kahn, R.L.: The Social Psychology of Organizations (2 ed.), New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1978
10
Author(s): Nia S. Alexandrov ACET Centre, The University of Reading Philip Lyle Building PO Box 68 Whiteknights campus Reading, RG6 6BX Berkshire, United Kingdom
[email protected]
Ali Al-Khalifah ACET Centre, The University of Reading Philip Lyle Building PO Box 68 Whiteknights campus Reading, RG6 6BX Berkshire, United Kingdom
[email protected]
Raul Ramirez Department of Computer Science ITESM, Tecnologico de Monterrey Monterrey, Mexico
[email protected]
David Johnson ACET Centre, The University of Reading Philip Lyle Building PO Box 68 Whiteknights campus Reading, RG6 6BX Berkshire, United Kingdom
[email protected]
Vassil N. Alexandrov ACET Centre, The University of Reading Philip Lyle Building PO Box 68 Whiteknights campus Reading, RG6 6BX Berkshire, United Kingdom
[email protected] Priscilla Ramsay ACET Centre, The University of Reading Philip Lyle Building PO Box 68 Whiteknights campus Reading, RG6 6BX Berkshire, United Kingdom Ronan Jamieson ACET Centre, The University of Reading Philip Lyle Building PO Box 68 Whiteknights campus Reading, RG6 6BX Berkshire, United Kingdom
[email protected] Adrian Haffegee ACET Centre, The University of Reading Philip Lyle Building PO Box 68 Whiteknights campus Reading, RG6 6BX Berkshire, United Kingdom
[email protected]
Ismail M. Bhana ACET Centre, The University of Reading Philip Lyle Building PO Box 68 Whiteknights campus Reading, RG6 6BX Berkshire, United Kingdom
[email protected] Gabrielle Espindola ACET Centre, The University of Reading Philip Lyle Building PO Box 68 Whiteknights campus Reading, RG6 6BX Berkshire, United Kingdom
[email protected] Eve-Marie Larsen ACET Centre, The University of Reading Philip Lyle Building PO Box 68 Whiteknights campus Reading, RG6 6BX Berkshire, United Kingdom
[email protected]
11
