Download - Self-direction indicators
Self‐Direc*on Indicators for Evalua*ng the Design‐Based eLearning Course with
Social So<ware
Kai Pata, Sonja Merisalo
Tallinn University, Ins*tute of Informa*cs, Center for Educa*onal Technology, Narva road 25, 10120, Tallinn, Estonia.
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
CELDA 2009, ROME, November, 20‐22th
New learning context
• In the context of life‐long learning it makes sense for learners to target the Instruc*onal Designs towards their own needs.
• Maintaining Personal Learning Environments (PLE) can offer learners the opportunity to plan their own learning trajectory and enter to different collabora*ve learning ac*vi*es.
• The design process enables the development of self‐direc*on and self‐reflec*on habits as part of the design process.
PLE‐based course tools
Outline of an eLearning course
GROUPWORK INDIVIDUAL WORK
COMPOSING PLE
INTEGRATING GROUP PLEs
Personal learning contract
Personal learning contract
SELF‐REFLECTIONS
E‐LEARNING COURSE PROTOTYPE
PLANNING THE GROUPWORK
55 students from 10 interna*onal universi*es
reflected weekly through a reflec*on
template during the 14 weeks
course.
Goal • The development of self‐direc*on indicators for evalua*ng the e‐learning course using students‘ self reflec*ons in blogs.
• It is important to find methods of evalua*ng learning process with personal learning environments using unobtrusive methods.
Problem
Weekly reflec*on templates
• Ques*ons: – What was the most important thing you learned this week?
– What was par*cularly interes*ng/boring in this week? – Was there something you did not quite understand and want to know more about it?
– What kind of ques*ons/ideas/experiences this week's ac*vi*es raised for you?
– Which tools did you use this week? Explain what was the purpose of using these tools (e.g. social talk, to regulate my team ac*vi*es, to work on my documents)?
– With whom did you communicate during this week, how many *mes, with which tools, and for what purposes?
Research ques*ons
• Which are the indicators of the self‐direc*on in students’ self‐reflec*on blogs‐posts?
• What is their applica*on during the Design‐based learning course?
• Which are the interrela*ons between the indicators of self‐direc*on?
Three types of ‘tools’
• For iden*fying self‐reflec*on indicators we can elaborate ac*vity theory (Engeström, 1987) that uses the ‚tool‘ concept (eg. material tools, language, and the organiza;on of group‐work ) as central for signifying various mediators that enable learners and teams to fulfill objec*ves.
• Self‐direc;ng competence becomes a cogni;ve tool, and may serve as another mediator of ac*ons.
Three types of compe*ng ‘tools’
• Three types of compe*ng ‚tools‘ are available for individuals who design and maintain their Personal Learning Environments in learning courses: – a) material tools (eg. social so<ware); – b) team as the tool to reach personal and group goals during the ac*vity; and
– c) the person itself with its aresenal of self‐direc*on competences.
Indicators
Social so<ware use
Clarity of the
course
Observed change
Ruptured situa*ons
Self‐direc*ng strategies
Team as the tool
The voice of the writer
Different voices of the Self
Differences between me the group
Unclear Clear
In others
In Self
I as part of the group
I
Expect others to work
Organize the team
Diagnose
Set goals
Formulate needs
Evaluate
Find resources
Find strategies
Create agenda
Implement
Start new tools
Restart new tools
Difficul*es with tools
Drop tools
Con*nue using tools
Strategies for self‐direc*on Self‐direc*ng strategies are not frequently reflected in blog posts
Tool usage in PLEs
Integra*ng PLEs for group‐work causes dropping some personal tools and trying new tools
Group work was a trigger to persuade students to keep using certain team tools and start using again some ini*ally used tools.
Clarity of the course
Un‐clarity of the course increases when PLEs are integrated and team tries to find common teamwork habits
The voice of the writer
Student gradually becomes from individual learner towards considering himself as part of the group
Compe*ng ‘tool’ systems
Indicators of self‐direc*on were not mutually correlated indica*ng to the serious problems in using self‐direc*on components systema*cally in self‐reflec*on blog posts.
When students perceived that ‘course was not clear’, they started ‘organizing the team’
Students who par*cipated ac*vely in team stopped self‐direc*on in reflec*ons
Conclusions
• Indicators of self‐direc*on can be systema*cally collected from self‐reflec*ons and could be used for evalua*ng the progress and constraints in e‐learning courses that involve parallel individual and group assignments with social so<ware.
• However, there exists a tension and compe**on between simultaneous individual and group assignments, and reflec*ng evidences of self‐direc*on in both ac*vi*es.
This study was funded by:
iCamp project (027168) under the IST 6th framework programme of the EU hpp://www.icamp.eu/
Targeted research project of Estonian Ministry of Educa*on and Research: "E‐learning systems with distributed
architecture, their interoperability and models of applica*on"
Estonian Science Founda*on project: "The framework for suppor*ng and analysing self‐directed learning in augmented learning
environment"