Post on 28-Jul-2015
Self-Directed Learning in Trial FutureLearn courses
Inge Ignatia de Waard
What to expect?
• Background• Literature foci• Research environment• Target population• Research questions• Methodology• Findings• Towards main study• Two main challenges
Prelude to PhD: pilot study
Internal FutureLearn course August 2013 – invitation only.
Literature foci
• Self-directed learning: andragogy concept of Knowles (1975), enhanced by Merriam (2002)
• Multiple learner concepts: mobile learning: Vavoula (2005); Song & Hill (2007); Kop & Fournier (2011)
• Technology and mobility: Sharples, Taylor & Vavoula (2007); Sharples (2013); de Waard (2013)
• Individual collaborative learning: Kop & Fournier (2011); Kop & Bouchard (2011); Milligan, Margaryan & LittleJohn (2013)
SDL among MOOC types
SDL rather in xMOOC or cMOOC or … ?• xMOOC versus cMOOC: Siemens (2005); Fournier, Kop &
Durand (2014); Ross, Sinclair, Knox, Bayne, and Macleod (2014)
Drop out or self-directed learning choice? Clow (2013)Learner success in MOOC = diverse: Bentley et al. (2014)
cMOOC
xMOOC
Additional elements of SDL
Unclear for MOOC, but elements from mLearning, online learning and some MOOC literature:• Online learning research related (e.g. Garrison, 1997 & 2003)• Design influences SDL (Loyens, Magda, Rikers, 2008)• Seen in relation to Lifelong learning (Arrigo et al., 2012)
Mapping SDL MOOC territoryOverall learning TELearning (mobile, online) MOOC learning
Prior knowledge (Mobile) Seamless Learning Group size
Collaborative / individual learning
Learning with new tools: digital skills
Global learners: possible non-native languages, different cultural backgrounds,
Formal and informal Contextualized learning Content is very modular, certification very diverse
Different degrees of certification
Shorter courses MOOC casualness: on top of other learning, as spare time action, superficial curiosity. Leisure learning.
Course/Learning expectations Just-in-time learning: disaster relief, performance support
Less tutor support (in general)
Unforeseen circumstances challenging participation
Tech savy or willing. Organised outside class/curriculum (mostly)
Personal traits (including motivation)
Mixed online and face-to-face interactions
Personal interactions within MOOC are publically available
Learning is not confined to the course group
Additional tech learning options: augmented learning, gamification
Learning analytics used as algorithms due to group size data available
Pilot: trial FutureLearn courses
2 closed beta courses in FutureLearn rolled out from 27 August 2013 and lasted for 2 weeks. These closed beta courses consisted of two courses (The secret Power of Brands and New Ecology), each of them providing two weeks of content and interactions to the participants.
Research environmentFutureLearn in development
Roll out courses• Running alpha trial courses from 29 July 2013, quickly adapting for optimal
user experience• Running beta closed courses from 27 August 2013, two weeks• Rolling out first public beta courses from 15 September 2013, full courses 8 –
10 week coursesDesign• Based on mobile learning principles: simple design, content in bitesize chunks. • Current: expert content delivery, share and peer-discussion.Pipeline• Social learning: conversations• Increased collaborative learning, learner based content creation. • More learner-centered• Sharing learner expertise
Target population
Informal adult learners engaged in two beta-courses of FutureLearn• The target population: learners interested in
FutureLearn (website registration, answering social media & news article calls).
• Online pre-course survey for consent
Purposeful sample
• The final sample: 59 FutureLearn course participants. They were selected from the total cohort based on: – A diverse mobile device background (ranging from people without mobiles
to those having several)– A mix of prior social media expertise (varying from none to over 5 years of
experience)– A diverse view on the importance of collaborative learning (varying from
not at all important to very important)– A diverse experience in MOOC or online learning in general (ranging from
no experience to multiple experiences)
Research questions• What are the learning experiences of adult participants engaging in
individual and collaborative self-directed learning using multiple devices in a FutureLearn course?
4 sub-questions:1. What are the elements of daily life affecting the learning
experience? 2. What are the technical aspects influencing learning experiences for
learners?3. How do the MOOC participants perceive the effect of individual or
collaborative learning on their SDL?4. Which actions (if any) did the learners undertake to adapt their
learning?
Open science of this pilot
• Shared research instruments can be read here (Academia: online survey questions, learning log templates, interview questions)
• The full mobile impact on MOOC thesis can be accessed here). • A draft report with literature review and methodology on pilot study with
research instruments, can be found here (with some brief pointers on writing a probation report).
Why a phenomenological approach to plan the pilot study?
Phenomenological research is a strategy of inquiry in which the researcher identifies the essence of human experiences about a phenomenon as described by participants. The procedure involves studying a small number of subjects through extensive and prolonged engagement do develop patterns and relationships of meaning (Moustakas, 1994).
Method: 3 stages for collecting data
The pilot stage will consist of 3 stages to grasp the expectations, experiences and reflections of the FutureLearn participants. • Phase 1 - expectations: using an online survey which will be delivered to
all pilot study participants two weeks before the FuturLearn course. • Phase 2 – keeping learning diary logs: two learning diary logs: a weekly
and a daily learning log, used during the course. • Phase 3 – reflections: structured focus group interviews planned once
the course has finished.
Expectations Experiences Reflections
Phase 1: pre-course online survey
• Tool used: SurveyMonkey (mobile)• Data collected: prior to course• Topics covered:
– MOOC experience– mLearning experience– Social media experience– FutureLearn expectations
Phase 2: Learning Logs
Built upon Vavoula’s (2005) learning diary templates. The templates altered for research (adding MOOC elements: social media, collaborative learning) • Weekly learning log: reflects type of FutureLearn
interactions the participant engaged in • Daily learning log: reflects actual learning for each day the
participant engages in FutureLearn.
Phase 3: structured 1-on-1 interviews
Looking at the participants reflections on the course, their devices used, their individual and collaborative learning experiences, their overall evaluation of the course and the strategies they adopted related to SDL.
Grounded theory to analyse the data
An exploratory methodology => combining complementary approaches: a phenomenological approach + grounded theory. • A grounded theory (GT) approach was chosen to analyse the
data (Charmaz, 2006). Complimentary characteristics of both methodologies (Creswell, 2006).
• both phenomenology and GT fit research looking for meaning as perceived by the research subjects.
• Phenomenology fits research investigating the meaning individuals give to a phenomenon (e.g. learning experiences), GT permits data like learning experiences to be analysed.
Some First Findings
Which learner activities did you engage in? (n=47)Viewing multimedia: 100 %Reading text based content: 91 %Reading course discussions: 87 %Clicking ‘Mark as done’ on articles: 91 %Taking a Quiz: 83 %Responding to questions/discussions: 68 %Searching for additional information on the internet: 51 %Viewing activity feed for the course: 30 %Following other users: 23 %Adding notes to video: 21 %Bookmarking content for later retrieval after the course has ended: 4 %
Did you work on your own or collaboratively? (n=48)Mostly on my own: 67 %A mix of both: 29 %More of a collaborative learner: 2 %Not applicable: 2 %
Problems or challenges encountered:Time related: 40 %Spare time demands: 40 %Internet connection: 35 %Family demands: 30 %Task-specific: 15 %Accessing content: 10 %Using course tools: 10%Understanding jargon: 5 %Emotional: 5 %
Some Learning Log feedback
• Hardware challenges• No support from teachers/tutors• Internet connection challenges• Course tool problems• Coping with stringed (one long list) of discussion threads as
learner activity• Non-mobile user learning logs returned (reason?)• Environment in development: not optimized for
collaborative learning, mobile communication… so probing without strong learner interaction option basis
• Asking people to find technical solutions
Key findings• Passive active participation: a result of self-esteem, learning
preference, assimilating the new platform• Daily life (personal professional) affects MOOC learning to a great
extend, but its use can be positive or negative depending on the interpretation given by the learner (e.g. illness)
• Formal and informal contacts (expert and laymen): we use our existing network (relevant or not) with the new network (chosen based on perceived expertise or mutual interest (Rienties, 2013)
• Prior MOOC experiences color active participation (expectations MOOC reality)
• Most of all: learners proceed by reaching for some kind of personally driven balance: time, effort, interest, motivation… There seems to be a personally defined zone where new (MOOC learning happens) => increases feeling of success
SDL: mapping factors and zones
Comfort Learning
zone
Technology:
(AS)TAMAODMLearner
Generated Contexts
Digital skills Pedagogy:
transfo
rmative to
socia
l-
constructive
ZPD
Personal traits: motivation, socio-political,
identity, Big Five
Collaborative
versus individual
learningPrior
knowledgeExperienceEducation SDL skills
Lear
ning flow:
emotional
well-b
eing
Learning management capacity
Learning context
Personal context and
teaching context (language,
culture, openness)
Possible SDL Learning zone
No Learning zone /wide gap
Taken forward to main study
• Focus on self-directed learning (andragogy) or on self-determined learning (heutagogy)?
• Only focus on experienced online learners• Use content diversity of MOOCs• Explore all emerging elements to filter out major MOOC
elements
Two current challenges
Untangling concepts: • Heutagogy: self-determined learning (beyond
SDL) versus adult learning: self-directed learning (lifelong learning) versus self-regulated learning (vocational learning)
• But there is more: autonomous learning, individual learning, collaborative learning
Creating a learning crossover framework including learning dichotomies that are relevant to MOOCs
References• Arrigo, M., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., & Kismihok, G. (2012). Meta-analyses from a collaborative project in
mobile lifelong learning. British Educational Research Journal, (ahead-of-print), 1-26.• Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33.• Garrison, D. R. (2003). Self-directed learning and distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of
Distance Education (pp. 161-168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.• Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning. New York: association Press.• Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. ‐ New Directions for adult and
continuing education, 2001(89), 3-14.• Kop, R., & Fournier, H. (2011). New dimensions to self-directed learning in an open networked learning
environment. International journal of Self-Directed Learning, 7(2). • Loyens, S. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with
self-regulated learning.Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411-427.• Milrad, M., Wong, L. H., Sharples, M., Hwang, G. J., Looi, C. K., & Ogata, H. (2013). Seamless Learning: An International
Perspective on Next Generation Technology Enhanced Learning. In Z. L. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds). Handbook of Mobile Learning. Routledge.
• Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.• Song, L., & Hill, J. R. (2007). A conceptual model for understanding self-directed learning in online environments. Journal of
Interactive Online Learning,6(1), 27-42. • Vavoula, G.; O'Malley, C. & Taylor, J. (2005). A study of mobile learning as part of everyday learning. In: Attewell,
Jill and Savill-Smith, Carol (Eds). Mobile Learning Anytime Everywhere: a Book of Papers from MLEARN 2004. (pp. 211–212). London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
• Wong, L. H., & Looi, C. K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364-2381.
• de Waard, Keskin, Koutropoulos (upcoming paper) Exploring future seamless learning research strands for MOOC.
27
Contact me: questions, networking…
E-mail: ingedewaard (at) gmail.com
Blog: ignatiawebs.blogspot.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Ignatia
Publications: http://www.ingedewaard.net/pubconsulpres.htm Presentations: http://www.slideshare.net/ignatia
linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ingedewaard
And feel free to talk to me right here, right now!