Time factor Seminar

Time factor Thematic Research Seminar

Romero, M. Llorens, F., Perez, A., Franco, M., Hettiarachchi, E., Esposito, A.

Dra. Margarida Romero [email protected]

Time factor Thematic Research Seminar The time factor perspectives collaborative conceptual map

Presenting Ph.D. Students:Llorens, F.Perez-Poch, A.Franco-Casamitjana, M.Hettiarachchi, E.(virtual) Esposito, A.

Thematic Research Seminar : Dra. Barberà, Dra. Romero

Ph.D. Students:Anglada, O., Espositio, A., Llorens, F., Sabulsky, G., Vazquez, A., Castro, P., Franco-Casamitjana, M., Izquierdo, J.V., Hettiarachchi, E., Perez-Poch, A. Quesada, A.V., Medina, J.L.

1st June 2011. Elearn Center.

Time factor Thematic Research Seminar Time factor Thematic Research Seminar




Part of the PhD. Candidates participating in theTime Factor Thematic Research Seminar follow the event on Twitter

#timefactor#elearning

#uoc

#phd



Agenda

1. Introduction the Time Factor Thematic Research Seminar Objectives (Margarida Romero, PhD.)

2. Perspectives of the Time Factor in E-learning• Social and cultural time (Francesc Llorens, PhD. C.)• Academic time (K.H. Enosha Lasanthi Hettiarachchi, PhD.C.)• Behavioural time (Antoni Perez, PhD. C.)• Planning and Time Regulation (Marga Franco-Casamitjana, PhD. C.)• Temporal affordance of Computer Learning Environments (Antonella

Esposito, PhD. C.)

3. Discussion



• To introduce the PhD. Students into the Time Factor in E-learning

• To produce an academic paper on the temporal management competencies in e-learning

• To rise the interest on the Time Factor in each of the PhD. studies to be developed by the participants.

Time Factor Research Seminar’ Objectives



• In educational research, time is assumed as objective, linear and future oriented. • We assume time as a social construct (UT/GMT, temporal patterns) providing a

framework for task allocation and regulation, at the individual, group and society level.

Time is a dimension in all mental process (Durkheim, 1912). Learning needs time. E-learning could be spaceless, but not timeless. Time as a cognitive and a metacognitive dimension and factor both in learning process and products Time as a resource that could be managed (Time management) at different levels (individual, group, society). Time management (TM) as the decision making process concerning time use

Introduction to the Time Factor in e-learning



Effective learning time

Engaged time / time-on-task (regulated by the students)

Allocated time (lower temporal scripting)

Scheduled time (flexibility)

A major reason to enroll a VC is time flexibility.Virtual Campus offers a major time flexibility (depending on temporal scripting of the activities), but distance education is not reducing time-on-task and effective learning times. Virtual campus are spaceless but not timeless!

Virtual Campus (VC): spaceless but not timeless!


Engaged time / time-on-task

Allocated time

Scheduled time

Work time Family time



The time factor perspectives collaborative conceptual map

Romero, M., Anglada, O., Espositio, A., Llorens, F., Sabulsky, G., Vazquez, A., Castro, P., Franco-Casamitjana, M., Izquierdo, J.V., Hettiarachchi, E., Perez-Poch A., Quesada, A.V., Medina, J.L. (2011). Collaborative concept map of the literature review of the Time Factor in E-learning. Time Factor Doctorate Research Seminar. UOC. Available online https://www.mindmeister.com/maps/show/83619114



What is Social & Cultural Time?

– Time acts as a kind of paradigm that derives its components from science, religion and collective imagery.

– Literature about Social and Cultural Time comes mainly from ethnology and antropology1, philosophy2 and even the arts3.

– Except for western cultures, there is no significant historical influence of technology in the organization and representation of the Time.

[1] Levy-Strauss, C. (1975). El pensamiento salvaje. México: FCE.[2] Kermode, F. (2003). El sentido de un final. Barcelona: Gedisa. See also Toboso Martín (2003): Tiempo y sujeto. PhD Thesis. Retrieved Mai 26, 2011 from http://forteza.hst.ucm.es/profes/juanfran/crono/tiempo_sujeto.htm [3] Sora i Domenjó, Carles (2010). "Fenomenología del tiempo en la representación visual interactiva". Hipertext.net, 8, http://www.upf.edu/hipertextnet/numero-8/tiempo_interaccion.html

Refers to the way in which a society (or community) represents the notion of Time and considers its acts, facts and values as shaped by this representation.



– Individuals of different cultures have different ways to organize, plan and schedule themselves.

– Japanese distance learners have a cognitive style quite different from their Europeans counterparts.

– They prefer to work in concrete and reflexive learning sequences rather than in abstract and active ones (slow time).

Aoki and Bray (2006) observes that japanese distance learners has particular attitudes when joining virtual activities

[1] Aoki, K. & Bray, E. (2006) Learning Styles of Distance Learners in Japan: Cultural Considerations. Retrieved Mai 26, 2011 from http://bit.ly/l7PFh1

Why is important to know about Social & Cultural Time? An exemple …



When should we pay special attention to Social & Cultural Time when designing learning experiences?

– Multicultural presence in virtual classrooms. This implies to identify the possible differences in the management of the students time.

– Social relationships in the students communities, outside the classrooms.

– Teamwork participation and collaborative working1.

When we design learning experiences with ICT, we should recognize the cultural differences among learners, and take into account at least three possible scenarios (not exclusives) in which they could appear:

[1] Kirchner, F., Pass, F. & Kirchner, P.A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: united brain for complex tasks. Education & Psychology. 21. 31-42.



Academic timeAcademic time can be categorized as

– Students' Time– Teachers' Time– Teaching Time– Instructional Time– Institutional Time– e-Mentoring/Facilitation Time

Romero, M., Anglada, O., Espositio, A., Llorens, F., Sabulsky, G., Vazquez, A., Castro, P., Franco-Casamitjana, M., Izquierdo, J.V., Hettiarachchi, E., Quesada, A.V., Medina, J.L. (2011). Collaborative concept map of the litterature review of the Time Factor in E-learning. Time Factor Doctorate Research Seminar. UOC. Available online https://www.mindmeister.com/maps/show/83619114


Engaged time / time-on-task (regulated by the students)

Allocated time (lower temporal scripting)

Scheduled time (flexibility)

Work time Family time



Students' TimeStudent Interaction Time (Sangrà,2002)

– Student-Environment Interaction– Student-Materials Interaction– Student-Student Interaction– Student-Professor Interaction– Student-Tutor Interaction

Academic self-efficacy and academic procrastination (Odaci, 2011)– Academic self-efficacy : students’ belief in their own competence– Academic procrastination : a student who, lacking poor time management skills

and feeling stress, chooses to put off work or studying that needs to be done

• Allocated time to complete a task (eg: questions and assignments) (Mory, et al. 2007)• Engaged Time (Caldwell, Huitt and Graeber, 1982), (Berliner, 1984)

– Time the student spend on learning a topic



Teachers' Time• Teachers' perceptions (Herolda and Warin, 2011)

– So much to learn, so little time... • Time to prepare skilled on-line teachers (Prendergast, 2003)

Teaching Time• Scheduled Time (Martinic,1998)

– Officially designated time• Allocated Time

– Actually spend to learn a topic by the teacher



Instructional Time • Time teachers spend on task (Benavot and Gad, 2004). Maximize the amount of

time allocated for instruction

Institutional Time• Course Duration. Officially designated time for a course• Course time management (Fransen, Kirschner & Erkens, 2011; Oliveira, Tinoca, &

Pereira, 2011). Team effectiveness and collaborative learning time• Building Learning Environments (Chieu,2007)• Time flexibility in higher education institutions (Collis & Moonen, 2001)

– Times for starting and finishing a course– Times for submitting assignments and interacting within the course– Tempo/pace of studying– Moments of assessment



e-Mentoring/Facilitation Time• e-Mentoring/Facilitation Time (Bierema & Merriam, 2002)

– Time taken to mentor/facilitate an online course



Behavioural time

- Habits

- Time personalisation

- Time as perception

- Polychronicity

describes people who prefer to work on multiple activities at the same timeThe polychronic-monochronic concept was first developed by Edward Hall in 1959 in his anthropological studies of time use in different cultures



Knowledge

Desire Skills

Habits

Consistent, often unconscious pattern of behaviour

Control of own time often leads to Life Satisfaction: Macan, Shahani, Dipboye, Peek (1990).

Behavioural time

Habits



Personal Rythms, Adaptive Time, Acceleration Gros, Barbara & Kirschner (2010).

Time personalisation

Time as perception Lifelong Learner’s expectations Thorpe (2006)

Integration of the studies in the lifestyle Tresman (2002)

Self-paced learners and social software Anderson et al (2010)

Time use expectations of NetGen students in higher eduation Ramanau et al (2010)

Behavioural time



Polychronicity

Personality, Individual Perfomance Conte & Giftot (2005)

Collaborative learning Logics of online Collaboration. Voigt C. (2008)

Polychronicity and ICT Polychronicity, Internet and the mass media.

Waipeng L., Trevor T., Shahul S. (2006)

Behavioural time



1. Time management

2. Regulation in learningSelf-regulated learning (SRL)Co-regulated learning (CoRL)Socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL)

3. Planning and time regulation in learning

Planning and time regulation



Time Management (Macan, Shahani, Dipboye & Phillips, 1990) (1990)

1. Setting goals and priorities (Lakein, 1973)2. Engaging in the mechanics of time management3. Having a preference for organization4. Perception of control over time (Macan, 1994)



Regulation in learning: Learners have actively control over their own learning and outcomes, with processes by which learners set goals, plan, execute and adapt learning Intentional and goal directed (Hadwin, Järvelä & Miller, 2011) Metacognitive (Hadwin, Järvelä & Miller, 2011) Regulate behaviour, cognition and/or motivation/affect (Hadwin, Järvelä & Miller, 2011) Social (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Volet, Summers & Thurman, 2009)

Self-regulated learning (SRL): (Hadwin, Järvelä & Miller, 2011) Strategically planning, monitoring and regulating cognition, behaviour and motivation Personal adaptation or independence in regulatory activity

Co-regulated learning (CoRL): Emergent interaction mediating regulatory work (Volet et al., 2009) Regulatory expertise is distributed amongst people and activity systems Mediation of individual adaptation and regulatory competence (Hadwin, Järvelä & Miller, 2011)

Socially shared regulation of learning (SSRL): (Hadwin, Järvelä & Miller, 2011) Interdependent or collectively shared regulatory processes orchestrated in the service of a shared outcome Collective adaptation and regulation of collaborative processes



Planning and time regulation in learning(Hadwin, Järvelä & Miller, 2011)

To set a goal After setting a goal: planning, monitoring, control and evaluating de

processes By: regulating behaviour, cognition, motivation/affect and time In individual or collective context



Time affordances of Computer Learning Environments

Most studies in learning and teaching process in e-learning mainly focus on pedagogical benefits of technology and how they absorb more or less students' time (Gros, Barberà & Kirschner, 2010).

Accounts on time affordances of ICTs tools and environments for learning purposes can be directly or indirectly inferred from studies in:

- systematic views of distance education (Bates, 2005); - CSCL (e.g. Scardamalia and Bereiter, 1997; Dewiyanti et al., 2007 ; Sarmiento and Stahl, 2008) ;- learner experiences with ICTs as reported from educational technology research (Thorpe, 2006; Anderson et al., 2010);- approaches in design of computer-mediated environments (e.g. Jones & Warren, 2006).

Otherwise, issues of time affordances can be contextualized within the wide debate on the term “affordances”.




Bates (2005) describes inherent delivery features of technologies, that identify the main distinction of synchronous and asynchronous e-learning contexts (see also Hrastinski, 2008).

Many authors studied time management and perception as 'effects' of use of asynchronous web forums (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994; Dewayanti e al., 2007).

Other scholars (Anderson, Poellhuber & McKerlich, 2010) highlighted than in less than a decade, a plenty of new communication technologies has been disrupting the traditional model of self-paced e-learner, enabling different time patterns to be adopted within and beyond the institutional virtual learning environments.

However, empirical studies (Thorpe, 2006) report that ‘email’ keeps on being perceived by e-learners as the most ‘time saving’ among ICTs.




‘Efficiency’ seems to be the main time affordance of technology as expected by learners. But this can be sometimes misleading even for designers.

In fact, more complex digital environments are emerging and challenging the popular assumption of technology as a learning accelerator.

For instance, Jones & Warren (2010) show how the use of a MUVE (multi-user virtual environment) is proved to imply a remarkable increase of learning time for students.

To face that, the authors consider a re-modeling of the 3-D environment’s time affordances through intelligent agents, aiming to guide learners’ behaviour and optimize their learning time. In parallel, they intend to reduce the time that teachers have to devote to repetitive kind of support.




The notion of ‘Affordances’ has being highly contested over time (Oliver, 2006; Conole, 2011), but it is worth exploring it because it can shed light on ways in which ICTs shape learning time and collaborative work.

McLoughlin (2007) defines affordances as “can do’s”, highlighting the meaning of ‘potentiality for action’ underlying this concept and characterising ICT tools and environments.

Here we briefly consider the positions hold by Conole & Dyke (2004) and by Oliver (2006) and their implications for time affordances.




Conole & Dyke (2004) build their taxonomy of ICTs affordances as socially-constructed accounts of technology and list a range of qualities attributable to ICTs, such as multimodality and non-linearity, reflection, immediacy.

In their taxonomy, ‘time’ - as associated to a specific technology - appears to be mainly seen as a negative affordance (e.g. ‘time-consuming’ constraint) rather than a potentiality that can shape learner’s behaviour in creative ways.

Oliver (2006) suggests an idea of affordances of ICT environments as referred to a literary analysis of technology, drawing from Bakthin’s work on analysis of literary genres. Technology should be studied as an evolving form of cultural artifact, in which social and historical production, as well as intentionality, are highlighted.

In this perspective, ‘time affordances’ in ICTs can be intended in a more holistic way, as a dialectic dimension that is being intentionally co-constructed by actors in a specific educational context.




In this line (even if independently with respect to Oliver’s discussion), Ligorio & Ritella (2009) build on the Bakthin’s notion of ‘chronotope’ to explore time affordances of an ICT-enhanced environment in a blended learning project.

‘A chronotope is a genre of movement or pacing in the space that participants adopt over the temporal duration of an activity” (Ligorio & Ritella, 2009, p. 433).

The authors utilize the lens of ‘chronotope’ to interpret the uniqueness of space/time dimension of the learning environment being constructed and used by participants.

Adopting a musical metaphor, three different tempos (Adagio, Andante, Allegretto) are identified as occurring during the learning experience as a whole. Each tempo results as depending on features of tools being used, aims of the specific activities undertaken and different skills applied by participants.




Two highlights as a provisional conclusion of these short notes:

1. The emerging complex digital landscape of new tools and environments induces further consideration of ICTs time affordances not as mere inherent qualities of individual technologies, but as enabling factors to be modeled by learning designers to actually fulfill time efficiency's expectations and to match learning and organizational needs of specific educational contexts.

2. Although further exploration and operationalisation of the interpretation of 'time affordances' within a literary analysis of technology and the notion of ‘chronotope’ are needed, both seem to constitute interesting holistic perspectives to interpret emerging networked learning environments (such as MOOCs, 'massive online open courses') and their time affordances.



DiscussionThanks for your time

#timefactor#elearning

#uoc

#phd

Time factor Seminar

Education

Transcript of Time factor Seminar