FROM DIGITAL NATIVESto digital learners

Zarina M. Charlesworth & Natalie Sarrasin // Novembre 2015Zarina.charlesworth@heg-arc.ch / natalie.sarrasin@hevs.ch

HES-SO, University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Western Switzerland

Today’s schedule

1. Background to the research: The digitalisation of education

2. Research context

3. Research objectives

4. Research design

5. Selected results

6. Discussion

7. OUR QUESTION FOR YOU

8. Your questions

Professor UAS

HES-SO Valais / IEMnatalie.sarrasin@hevs.ch

Twitter / @sarrasin

Natalie B.

SARRASIN

Professor UAS

HEIG-VD / HE-ARCzarina.charlesworth

@heig-vd.ch

Twitter / @Charlesworth_Z

Zarina M.

CHARLESWORTH

Who are you ?

goo.gl/bjGwbU

1. THE DIGITALISATIONof education

What’s Web 2.0?

”I have always imagined the information space as something to which everyone has immediate and intuitive access, and not just to browse, but to create.”

Berners-Lee, T. 1999. Weaving the Web. Orion Business Book, p. 169.

“…ideas about building something more than a global information space; something with much more of a social angle to it. Collaboration, contribution and community are the order of the day and there is a sense in which some think that a new 'social fabric' is being constructed before our eyes. However, it is also important to acknowledge that these ideas are not necessarily the preserve of 'Web 2.0', but are, in fact, direct or indirect reflections of the power of the network: the strange effects and topologies at the micro and macro level that a billion Internet users produce.”

Anderson, P. (2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology & Standards Watch. P.14

“If learning to learn, if collaboration, and if the personalisationof educational experiences are at the core of current educational agendas, we need to find ways of enabling young people to come into contact with, collaborate with and learn from each other and other people. Social software is about bringing minds and ideas into contact with each other and is already, in the world outside schools, creating what was described by McLuhan as the global village.”

http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/opening_education/Social_Software_report.pdf P.11

Collaboration

«The conclusion that emerges is :

• that schools and education systems are, on average, not ready to leverage the potential of technology,

• there are gaps in the digital skills of both teachers and students,

• the identification of difficulties in locating high qualitydigital resources from among a plethora of poor-qualityones,

• there is a lack of clarity on the learning goals, and insufficient pedagogical preparation for blendingtechnology meaningfully into lessons and curricula.»

All which create a wedge between expectations and reality.*OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. Available from http://www.oecd.org/publications/students-computers-and-learning-

9789264239555-en.htm

Students, Computers and Learning :Making the connection*

Learning in the 21st Century*

“These teachers should be highly trained professionals, comfortable with technology, with a deep pedagogical understanding of the subject matter, able to respond in an improvised manner to the uniquely emerging flow of each classroom (Sawyer, 2004). To foster collaborative and authentic learning, they will lead teams of students – much like a manager of a business or the master in a workshop – rather than controlling students autocratically, as the factory bosses of old.”**Sawyer, K. R. (2008). Optimising learning: Implications of learning sciences

research. Paper presented at the Learning in the 21st century: Research, innovation and policy, Paris.

www.teacherswithapps.com

www.pinterest.com

www.andrewmowat.me

What this shows is that the successful integration of technology ineducation is not so much a matter of choosing the right device, theright amount of time to spend with it, the best software or the rightdigital textbook. The key elements for success are the teachers,school leaders and other decision makers who have the vision, andthe ability to make the connection between students, computers andlearning.»http://www.oecd.org/publications/students-computers-and-learning-9789264239555-en.htm p.190

From lesson plans to instructional design

• https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/116243723354949962902

Digital natives

Term first coined by Prensky (2001:1) to describe “native speakers of the digital language” *

Increasingly the generation barrier is seen as articifial with definitions along the lines of that of Helsper and Enyon (2010:506) who see digital nativism as a combination of factors:

1. age – the youngest generation who has grown up with technology and does not know any other context;

2. experience – those who have been on the Internet the longest, while they might not have grown up with the Internet when young, they have been ‘submerged’ in it for the longest period of time; or

3. breadth of use – those for whom the Internet is integrated into almost every aspect of their everyday lives independent of their age or experience.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital, immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.

Helsper, E.J., & Enyon, R. (2010) Digital natives, where is the evidence?. British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503-520.

2. Research context : UAS

Student focus

- Class attendance is generally mandatory

- Computer access is frequently allowed during the class

- Classrooms are generally wifi enabled

- Moodle (official LMS) used in the majority of programs

Educator focus

- Support for continued pedagogical development

- Academic freedom

- Semester evaluations

Who are your students ?

cutcaster.com

www.dailymail.co.ukmediatechnologyeducation.pbworks.com

HES-SO Valais 2015_cours E-marketing

3. Research objectives

TO EXAMINE

•Ways in which Web 2.0 and mobile media applications can be used to :• support information seeking activities•encourage self-regulation• increase collaborative learning

•Whether innovative instructional design betteraddresses the needs and expectations of today’shigiher education student?

Theoretical framework

• Information-seeking skills

•Self-regulation• Refers to aspects of purposeful action, active

construction of learning, and the control of one’s learning directed actions (Bandura, 1986, 1991; Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick, 2006; Pintrich, 2004; Winters, Greene & Costich, 2008; Zimmerman, 1989; Zumbrunn, Tadlock & Roberts, 2011).

•Collaborative learning (De Corte, 2012; Järvelä, Näykki, Laru & Luokkanen, 2007; Lee & Tsi, 2011; Li, Ingram-El Helou & Gillet, 2012)

EdMedia Conference, Tampere, June 23-26, 2014

Self-regulation

ELSIN 2015, Exeter, July 1-3, 2015

Zimmerman

(2000)

Dabbagh and

Kitsantas

(2012)

Charlesworth and

Sarrasin

(2014)

Phase Stage Level

1Forethought Personal information

management

Organization and

searching

2 Performance or

volitional control

Social interaction and

collaboration

Information exchange

3 Self-reflection Information

aggregation and

management

Co-creation and co-

construction of

knowledge

LEVEL 2

Information

exchange

Organization

and control

Information-

seeking

4. Research design

ACTION RESEARCH

Intention…Action…Review (Dick:1993)

• Field: University of Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland – Valais campus

• Sample 1: 1st year marketing students (n=85)

•Data collection:• Qualitative

• Classroom observation & discussion• Quantitative

PPI-IvT Instrument (Lee & Tsai:2011)

PPI-TvI Instrument (Lee & Tsai: 2011)

Multi-dimensional self-report, Likert-scale (1-5) questionnaire, having 21 statements in 3 categories:

Information-seekingJudge the quality & usefulness of the searchedmaterials for learningTry different searching approaches for finding new learning materials

Collaborative learningProvide feedback to ideas suggested by peersShare my learning expereinces with peers

Self-regulationSet my own learning goalsExplore what I want to learn further

ELSIN 2015, Exeter, July 1-3, 2015

5. Selected qualitative findings

INFORMATION SEEKING• Lecturer feedback = increased but limited.

• Student = out of their comfort zone; «but we don’t know the answers»; can’t you just tell us; what will be on the exam?

COLLABORATION• Lecturer feedback = increased but limited.

• Student feedback = let us work as we want – very individualist

SELF-REGULATION• Lecturer feedback = students will be students

• Student = «we can do this»

Selected quantitative findingsLEARNING ASPECT

Collaboration Web Trad. P-valueShare class notes or learning materials with peers 4,43 3,80 .000Provide feedback to ideas suggested by peers 3,87 3,60 .024Share my learning experiences with peers 4,08 3,80 .017Make good use of learning information provided by my peers 3,99 3,74 .037

Information-seekingTry different searching approaches for finding new learning materials 3,33 3,59 .047Organize and synthesize the searched materials 3,43 3,66 .040

Share the learning materials with others4,21 3,88 .011

6. Discussion

WHAT HAPPENED INITIALLY

• Students not on board,• Insufficent explanation• No appropriation of the changes made• Out of their comfort zones so defaulting back to

«generation1»

LED TO

• Review of the course for delivery to adult furthereducation students + 2ND iteration BA students

• Very successful• Quantitative results still to be completed &

compiled

Food for thought…

goo.gl/VtFFHu

7. OUR QUESTIONfor you

How best to get studentsto embrace responsability

for their own learning ?

8. YOUR QUESTIONS

seance.epfl.chRoom nr 27474