2011

M. Haseeb Minhas

Digitally signed by M. Haseeb Minhas DN: cn=M. Haseeb Minhas, o=www.haseebmin has.com, ou, email=me@haseeb minhas.com, c=CA Date: 2011.12.15 15:24:43 -05'00'

Effective Learning
Through the use of Technology
This report presents a review on existing literature compiled to provide the definition and challenges presented when managing a virtual team.

M. Haseeb Minhas 7/30/2011

Introduction The continued development of information and communication technologies has virtualized the teaching process in many ways. Instructors are now using various forms of multimedia and web-based systems in delivering and teaching content to students. The use of computer mediated communication (CMC) has enabled synchronous (realtime chat) and asynchronous (forums, e-mails) communication to provide a more socially constructed form of learning. Understanding the connection of technology and the learning process has been the goal of many scholars who stated that use of technology should play a wide roll in transforming the process to a learner-centric model that is flexible enough to address the need of the individual learner. However, in spite of the use of technology we see today, this goal is far from achieved. The setback is due to focus on automating teaching efforts by recreating the environment in the classroom instead of creating new forms of learning content and tools that address dynamic needs of every learner. The traditional approach in content delivery and transmission from teacher to student is unable to keep up with the multiplying rate at which knowledge is growing. (Bork A., 2001) There are many challenges to overcome in incorporating technology successfully within the learning paradigm. These challenges include high production costs, insufficient storage, low content standards, isolated and closed systems. However, the new Internet (Web 2.0) and other recent development in technologies can assist in redefining the learning process that can meet the demands of the 21st century and overcome the shortfalls of current methods. The result should be an environment where a large numbers of students participate in the creation, delivery and consumption of content that meets high standards. This content should not be subject to the sole

purpose of grading but rather should be open for further evaluation and refinement by all users involved. This method will in turn form a cycle that supports the expansion and improvement in quality and quantity of opportunities available. As more and more users are involved, this effect will become increasingly powerful and far-reaching in its learning effectiveness. Teacher Centric and Socio-Constructivist Learning Models The teacher centric model of teaching is based on suitability in information transfer. The core aim of the student in this model is to memorize all the information acquired without being able to simultaneously interact or provide feedback. This is apparent when weak testing methods like multiple choices are used to quiz and stress the memory. As a result, students focus more on learning what will be on the test and therefore ignore the remaining material which eventually hinders the learning process. Lectures, textbooks, videos and text based websites are all forms of non-interactive media that do not allow individual differences and cannot be adapted to individual needs. The current implementation of technology in the learning process has only facilitated the transmission of learning content. It has thus far missed the opportunity to create learning content that is open, modular and interoperable. A study Technology in the Classroom: Friend or Foe conducted at Ball State University proved that students have mixed reactions to the current implementation of technology and do not see the value. The study recommended that Instructors who wish to involve students may need to rethink how and why they are using technologywe need to re-evaluate the content in the syllabi in order to make them more student oriented. (Jill M.D, 2003) Under the current trend and learning model, there is a fear that continued use of technology will eventually form barriers between the student and teacher, creating a passive

atmosphere. To counter this problem, the personal needs of students should be focused on. A greater emphasis on what students have difficulty understanding and their weaknesses should be analyzed. This goal can only be achieved by frequent high quality interaction in both directions. Consideration must also be put on peer to peer learning that brings students together. The collaborative technological form of teaching has already been successfully implemented under tutorial learning. A skilled tutor works with a small group of students in a highly interactive environment in which asking questions and discussing the content is encouraged. Each student will have their own point of view on the subject which may also be incompatible, therefore requiring a need for common understanding through negotiation. As a result, the students perception is challenged, which leads to the development of shared knowledge, further engaging students to listen and understand the entire perspective. This process is referred to as socio-constructivist learning model. Online forums are the most common tool that has supported this socio-constructivist model where users participate in an asynchronous conversation by posting messages and replying to threaded discussions. However, it further remains to be seen how effective forums are to foster horizontal communication and collaborative learning. In order to answer these questions, a qualitative assessment is further presented based on the experience within an online course Comp 601 at Athabasca University. Qualitative Analysis of an Online Course At the start of the course students were required to post a brief biography about themselves. This activity contributed to creating a sense of classroom community which had a significant impact in setting up successful horizontal communication among students. Apart from the common course interest, students saw themselves belonging to a group of members with

various hobbies and activities. Posting to this discussion provided students and other members the opportunity to know each other as shown in the Bio Forum which contributed to the development of a learning community. As a result, students felt comfortable to express their academic interests as well as personal opinions on various topics in other discussions. The sense of learning community started a supportive behavior in students that is apparent in the discussion titled Tutorial on learning object/flash builder tool? within the General Forum section. A student volunteers to help his/her classmates understand a tool that may provide vital help in creating their final project. In another instance, a student searched for relative information on the web according to his goal and eventually posted it on the forum to help his classmates. Students contribution within the forum is also expected to be metacognitive. This refers to the students automatic awareness of their own knowledge and their ability to understand, control, and manipulate their own cognitive processes. (Miles, C., 1993). Mumford in 1986 describes this process as being essential such that one who knows the stages in the process of learning and understands his or her own preferred approaches it to - a person who can identify and overcome blocks to learning and can bring learning from off-the-job learning to on-the-job situations(Mumford, 1986). Aside from the supportive behavior there is no clear example of metacognitive contribution. The students contribution was limited to assignments and course content, mostly referring to external web sources. This is apparent in many discussions where the answers are simply limited to adding an HTML link. It is also important to note that students replies to the learning forums for each week was very limited. Most entries were a single post instead of a nested discussion on elaborating the material further.

There were a few posts that received a significant number of replies. One being Have I been living under a rock! within the Unit 4 section. A student started the post by mentioning his experience in relation to the weeks activities and readings. He goes on to ask a series of questions from the forum community that generates interest leading to other student replying based on their perception of the topic being discussed. Such examples illustrate the focus on identifying confusing and inconsistent content which is overcome by taking corrective strategies that include relating to others for their views on current information. By the end of the course, sections that included Unit 7 and Unit 8 had barely any activity mainly because students found it time consuming which took their attention away from other tasks. Overall, the analysis shows that apart from influencing the development of a cohesive trend in class, students did not use the forums as a supporting tool to collaborate. To counter these issues, more attention is required in introducing the use of forums by providing examples of various forms of contributions. This will provide a clear view on each topic within the forum and it possibilities. The social and metacognitive dimension need to be developed further in balance so as to provide a constructive form of learning with a comfortable atmosphere that allows easy dialogue amongst students and teachers. Solutions & Approaches The current education technology is best described as rigid and closed systems. Course management systems such as Moodle are a form of enterprise software that binds the user to use its feature set which commonly includes content publishing, quizzes, grade books, scheduling etc. This limits the user to use prefixed tools for each teaching or learning activity without providing the flexibility to use their preferred tool of learning. Such systems confine the possibilities and limit the continuity of learning

To change the above, solutions need to be developed based on a principal approach. Three principles can be outlined: 1) The technology framework must be based on a learner-centric model. 2) The learning content and supporting tools must be open and flexible allowing users the freedom to use it and learn in a variety of ways. 3) The technological environment must be able to encompass a large network of users who are able to create, moderate and refine the content. This is also referred to as the network effect. Recent developments have already taken these principles into account. OpenCourseWare (OCW) and Open Educational Resource (OER) initiated at MIT have developed a new open approach to content distribution. The effort of this program is to include different institutions to publish their learning material freely online for users to use, modify and redistribute. Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) is another project which seeks to make learning accessible at anytime, anywhere in the world (Fletcher, Tobias, & Wisher, 2007). However, even though the openness of content can be very beneficial, it must be confined to set standards and specifications that need to be enforced to maintain the high standard of such an open environment. To address these interoperability issues ADL has developed SCORM (Shareable Content Object Reference Model) which is a collection of standards and specifications adapted from multiple sources to provide a comprehensive suite of e-learning capabilities that enable interoperability, accessibility and usability of Web-based learning content (SCORM & SIF, 2006)

Other developments include Common Cartridge, the Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF, vi) and the International Federation for Learning, Education, and Training Systems Interoperability (LETSI). The Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) objective is to support data exchange through a set standard that includes instructional, administrative, and infrastructure functions via a collaboratively defined data model (SCORM & SIF, 2006). In August 2008, the SIF Association and ADL combined efforts to achieve: 1) Passing digital content from a publisher to a learning platform 2) Passing sharable content object (SCO) data, regardless of state, from one application to another in real-time. 3) Providing a more comprehensive approach for interoperability within the schools environment by leveraging and utilizing SIF and SCORM data objects together (Abbott, 2008). International Federation for Learning, Education, and Training Systems Interoperability (LETSI) is built over the SCORM model to primarily focus on interoperability. Their view is that other beneficial characteristics will naturally follow the course once interoperability is attained. Even though the above frameworks may not be perfect solutions, they are still a good start at establishing a model where learnt content is open and interoperate in various forms. With this in view, other technologies not developed for learning specific use may also be helpful in attaining the goals defined. For instance, OpenID authentication could allow students to navigate to multiple websites and online applications effortlessly thereby increasing the opportunities for an open learning environment.

This shows that the barriers around technology are finally falling. The challenge now is to use this technology in an efficient manner taking into account all the factors described above. Conclusion Learning facilitated by technology remains to be seen in its full and independent form aside from its imitation of traditional models. Technology based on traditional models has failed to provide dramatic learning improvement. The demands of technology has changed, and Alfred Bork describes this demand best as, Memory is no longer important. Solving problems, encouraging creativity, adapting to change, and building intuition takes priority (Bork, 2000). In order for learning to adopt to this demand, it must follow the transformational principles of the learner-centric model, open source content as well as tools and the network effect. As the educational system focuses more on the learner-centric model, the quality of content and tools will increase rapidly. Unfortunately this is not the case now as most systems are developed and marketed towards institutions and teachers instead of students. Recent developments of SCORM, SIF and LETSI have the potential to support the creation, transmission and tracking of learning content as well as activities that are consistent with students needs. The success also depends on instructors using the variety of tools effectively to meet the learning goals of the students.

References Abbott, J. (2008, August 7). The SIF Association and the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) officially launch SIF and SCORM pilot; http://www.sifinfo.org/upload/press/8264CD_SIF_SCORM_Press%20Release_final.pd f. Bork, Alfred. (2000). Learning with the World Wide Web. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2-3), 81-85. Bork, Alfred (2001): What is needed for effective learning on the Internet?. Educational Technology & Society 4 (3), 139-144. Jill M. D'Angelo "Technology in the classroom: friend or foe". Education. FindArticles.com. 31 Jul, 2011. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_4_127/ai_n29358572/ Miles, C. (1992). Checklists for Assessing Thought in Action. Journal of Developmental Education, pg 32-33. Mumford, A. (1986). Learning to Learn for Managers. Journal of European Industrial Training, pg 10. SCORM & SIF (2006) Leveraging work for successful solutions, http://www.sifinfo.org/upload/press/289BZA_SCORM%20and%20SIF_final.pdf.