• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Hinkelman Learningdesign
 

Hinkelman Learningdesign

on

  • 844 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
844
Views on SlideShare
843
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://localhost 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Hinkelman Learningdesign Hinkelman Learningdesign Presentation Transcript

  • Learning Design: The International Standard for CALL? Don Hinkelman University of Melbourne, School of Languages 札幌学院大学人文学英語英米文学科 , 2006.06.04
  • Outline
    • Problem: Why are standards needed?
    • Issues: What kind of standard is best?
      • Depending on Theoretical Stance
      • Depending on Methodological Approach
      • Depending on Technological Trends
      • Depends on Development Ideology
    • Study: Does Learning Design fit CALL?
      • Case Study of an Open-source LMS
  • Part 1: Problem
    • Process: Software does not move from one site to another. Need to re-program. How do we interchange software and activities (process)?
    • 2. Content: Content does not move easily from site to site. How do we interchange content?
    • Not: “what is a single pattern for all CALL software?
    • But: “how do we ensure interoperability(portability)?
  • Common Standards Currently Used by CALL Teachers
    • . html .xml
    • .jpg
    • .ppt   .doc .xls
    • .php
    • Yet all are single file standards. To exchange a full learning scenario involves a complexity of multiple files, multiple activities, multiple people & venues
  • Interoperability Standards for Macro-level Files
    • Needs to include:
    • Whole courses in an LMS
    • Units of Learning (UOL)
      • fixed sequences of activities
      • flexible sequences of activities
    • Single activities [a.k.a. learning objects]
  • Interoperability Standards for Macro-level Files
    • Some Teacher Authoring Requirements:
    • Granularity: ability to break down whole course into parts
    • Composition: ability to combine parts into a course
    • Editable, Arrangable: reorder, reedit, sequence
    • Sequencing
    • Multiple Paths
    • Multiple Groups & Roles
  • IMS-Learning Design
    • An international standard
      • SCORM
      • IEEE
      • IMS
    • Only standard devoted to collaborative learning
    • Inclusive of solitary, and fixed sequence learning scenarios, blended learning
  • IMS-Learning Design
    • Technical Specifications
      • XML “wrapper”
      • standard nomenclature for describing activities and process
      • can be pre-specified, or post-harvested
      • intended for all learning scenarios, commercial or proprietary, blended or non-blended
  • Part 2: Issues
    • Problem: Why are standards needed?
    • Issues: What kind of standard is best ?
      • Depends on Theoretical Stance
      • Depends on Methodological Approach
      • Depends on Technological Trends
      • Depends on Development Ideology
    • Study: Does Learning Design fit CALL?
      • Case Study of an Open-source LMS
  • a. Theoretical Stance
    • What is your core stance on learning?
    • Learning is solitary
    • Learning is collaborative
    • Let us look at some theories of second language learning
  • Theories of Second Language Learning
    • Second Language Instruction (SLI)
    • Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
    • Second Language Socialisation (SLS)
  • Theory of SLI
    •        ごしどう
    • Second Language Instruction (SLI)   第二言語指導
        • Based on linguistics
        • A second language is learned best by learning the grammatical rules and vocabulary of the language.
        • It is instructed in school classrooms or on self-study materials.
        • Researchers analyze the language by dividing it into smaller bits (reductionism).
        • Teaching is by putting these small pieces in a logical order. Sentences, words and phrases are focused on.
  • Model of SLI
    • Grammar Progression
    • Vocabulary Progression
    Present Tense Past Tense Present Perfect Tense And so on Basic Words Intermediate Words Advanced Words And so on
  • Theory of SLA
    • しゅうとく
    • Second Language Acquisition (SLA)    第二言語習得
        • Theory from psychology
        • A second language is learned best by following the natural pattern of developing a language in the brain
        • It is “acquired”, not instructed, in both the real world and through classroom study or self-study.
        • Researchers analyze the stages that learners pick up a language (interlanguage).
        • Researchers look at mental processes.
        • Teaching is by paying attention to the natural order of acquisition. Students should focus on good learning strategies, not the structure & meaning of a language. Communicative discourse is more important than sentence structure.
  • Model of SLA
    • Information processing metaphor
    Inputs Processing Output Books Teaching Media Student Essays Speeches Test Answers
  • Theory of SLS
    •   しゃ かいか
    • Second Language Socialisation (SLS)   第二言語の社会化
        • Influenced by sociology/anthropology/ecology
        • A second language is learned best by joining a community that uses that language for specific purposes .
        • It happens through purposeful projects and tasks inside that community.
        • Researchers analyze the language acts and how veterans teach apprentices to do those jobs.
        • Teaching is by designing and facilitating a community that is full of real-life projects for students to do.
        • PPAARR
  • Model of SLS
    • Ecological/Environmental metaphor
    • Kramsch (2002), Van Lier (2001, 2005)
    T=Teacher NS=Novice VS=Veteran Student OV=Outside Veteran SS=Sister School OB/OG=Alumni Learning Community NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS T VS T VS VS VS OB NS NS OV SS OV SS SS SS SS SS
  • Learning is solitary
    • Standards which fit this model of reality
    • SCORM 1.3
    • IMS-SS
  • Learning is collaborative
    • Standards which fit this model of reality
    • None
  • Learning is collaborative & solitary
    • Standards which fit this model of reality
    • IMS-LD
      • Evolved from EML (Educational Modeling Language) of Open University NL
      • Incorporates solitary and collaborative learning in sequences of activities
      • Incorporates face-to-face and online learning (blended scenarios)
  • b. Methodological Approach
  • Key Concepts
    • Technology: electronic, architectural, paper forms, portfolios, media, web interfaces and other non-human actors in the learning process
    • “ materialist semiotic view”
    • Design: continuous planning, redesign, improvisations, and refinements of pedagogy
    • “ translation/transformation view”
    • Blended: hybrid forms of human/technology/curriculum/methods/spaces
    • “ actor-network view”
  • Core Conceptual Change
    • CALL as a package
      • Client-based
      • Proprietary code
      • Licensed content
      • Single-user learning
    • CALL as an environment
      • Web-based
      • Swappable scripts
      • Shared content
      • Collaborative learning
  • Trends of Blended Learning
    • Theoretical Changes
        • instruction >> acquisition >> socialisation
    • Methodological Changes
        • drill training >> project-based learning
    • Technical Changes
        • laboratories >> wireless rooms
        • CD software >> web software
  • c. Technological Trends
    • web based software (not standalone)
    • modules and scripts (not packages)
    • teacher-based design (not professional specialists)
    • drag-and-drop interfaces (Flash, Red5)
    • reconfigurable sequences (de/reconstruction)
    • rewriting/reformatting of authored content
    • reuse of learner content
    • granularization of roles and permissions
  • d. Development Ideology
    • Choices for teachers and developers
  • Part 3: Study
    • Problem: Why are standards needed?
    • Issues: What kind of standard is best?
      • Depending on Theoretical Stance
      • Depending on Methodological Approach
      • Depending on Technological Trends
      • Depends on Development Ideology
    • Study: Does Learning Design fit CALL?
      • Case Study of an Open-source LMS
  • Collaborative Research University of Melbourne : Horwood Language Centre Sapporo Gakuin University: English Education Study Group Moodle.org: Learning Design Study Group University of Melbourne moodle.org community
  • Learning Design Study Group moodle.org
    • Renamed to Technology and Pedagogy Study Group
  • Key Text
    • Learning Design
  • Key Text
    • "Learning Design: A Handbook on Modelling and Delivering Networked Education and Training"
    • Edited by Rob Koper and Colin Tattersall
  • What is Learning Design?
    • Learning Design (LD) is an international standard for modeling flexible sequences of educational activities. It applies not only to online network-based teaching but also classroom-based or blended learning as well.
  • Why use LD for CALL?
    • IMS-LD is perhaps the only standard now proposed that allows for collaborative, socio-constructivist-oriented learning in a variety of formats.
    • Yet, it is a “Proposed” standard in that little software actually uses it.
  • Studying Learning Design
    • A working group at moodle.org community held a collaborative study course to analyze LD and its potential for integration with Moodle during the spring and summer of 2005. That group produced a paper which was published in August 2005.
    • Journal: Journal of Interactive Media in Education
    • Title: Practical and Pedagogical Issues for Teacher Adoption of IMS Learning Design Standards in Moodle LMS
    • Authors: A. Berggren, D. Burgos, J. M. Fontana, D. Hinkelman, V. Hung, A. Hursh, G. Tielemans
    • Available at: http://jime.open.ac.uk/2005/02/
  • Research Team
    • Anders Breggren
      • IKT-Pedagogen E-learning Consultancy, Sweden
    • Daniel Burgos
      • UNFOLD Project, Open University, Netherlands
    • Josep Fontana
      • Faculty of Translation, Universitat Pompeu Fabr, Spain
    • Don Hinkelman (Facilitator, Editor)
      • Horwood Language Centre, University of Melbourne, Australia
    • Vu Hung
      • Ministry of Education and Training, Vietnam
    • Tony Husch
      • Dept. of Educ. Psych., University of Illinois, USA
    • Ger Tielemans
      • Stedelijk Lyceum, Twente University, Netherlands
  • Case Study Conclusions
    • LD does not have flexible authoring engines
    • LD is not an environment (not LMS)
    • LD exchanges learning sequences from LMS to LMS
    • LD can take snapshots of a learning process at various points in time. Can record the cumulative process.
    • LD is not necessary for teachers to understand. Simply, it is a requirement for any LMS--open source or proprietary.
  • Core Issue
    • Does IMS-Learning Design handle “bricolage” design?
  • Conclusion: Does LD fit CALL?
    • No: if your conditions are as follows
      • Theory of learning: solitary, SLI, SLA
      • Method of learning: content dissemination
      • Technological base: broadcast/delivery mode
      • Development ideology: proprietary, private licensing
      • Better Standards:
      • IMS-Simple Sequencing, SCORM 1.2, 1.3
  • Conclusion: Does LD fit CALL?
    • Yes: if your conditions are as follows
      • Theory of learning: solitary & collaborative, SLS
      • Method of learning: project-based learning
      • multiple learning paths
      • collaborative, group learning
      • Technological base: networked, blended learning
      • Development ideology: open source, public licensing
  • Future
    • LD-compliant project-based language learning module to an open-source learning management system
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • Refined Problem
    • How and when do teachers use technology? …use the internet?
    • Why do they choose some technology and not others? What factors?
    • How do they blend face-to-face technologies and online technologies?
  • What is a purpose?
    • Not practice for later “real-life”
    • Learning happens through doing something with real purpose, that secondarily uses a second language (not native language).
    • Some examples:
      • holding a conference (in a foreign language)
      • producing a magazine (in a foreign language)
      • hosting a visitor (in a foreign language)
      • going on a study tour (in a foreign language)
      • doing a fashion show (in a foreign language)
      • planting trees with a sister school (in a foreign…)
  • What is a community?
    • A group with a purpose
      • Veterans/Permanent members (veterans)
        • Teachers
        • Older students
        • Alumni (OB, OG)
        • Non-school community members
      • Apprentices/Transitory members (apprentices)
        • Beginning students
  • Part II: Trend of Blended Learning
    • Theoretical Changes
        • instruction >> acquisition >> socialisation
    • Methodological Changes
        • drill training >> project-based learning
    • Technical Changes
        • laboratories >> wireless rooms
        • CD software >> web software
  • What is a project?
    • A project is:
        • a job that needs to be done.
        • a classroom task that is related to a larger group effort
    • Some examples at SGU:
        • Korean exchange programs (hosting, visiting, organising)
        • Email exchange programs
        • Teaching practice, counseling practice
        • Bunkyodai Shogakko/Melbourne Primary School exchange
        • Homestay introduction letters (before going abroad)
        • Interviewing foreigners/international students in Sapporo
        • Powerpoint presentation forums
        • Mini-Drama Happyokai
  • History of Approaches and Foci in Second Language Pedagogy Ecological, Semiotic Linear, Input-Output Fixed, Rule-based Design Models Environment/Community Task Drill Design World Local Accomplishment Global Proficiency Native Production Pedagogic Success Fulfillment Competency Proficiency Pedagogic Assessment Project-creation Consciousness-raising Error-correction Pedagogical Technique Participation & Use Skill & Strategy Accuracy & Fluency Pedagogical Goals Apprentice Processor Imitator Role of Learner Actions, Effects Discourse Sentence Research Unit of Analysis Socialisation Acquisition Instruction Dominant Metaphor Sociocultural Cognitive Structural Dominant Theory Connectionism Constructivism Reductionism Philosophical Perspective Post-1990s 1970s-1990s Pre-1970s
  • Part II: Trend of Blended Learning
    • Theoretical Changes
        • instruction >> acquisition >> socialisation
    • Methodological Changes
        • drill training >> project-based learning
    • Technical Changes
        • Software: client software >> web software
        • Hardware: laboratories >> wireless rooms
  • Web Software: Towards Community Connectionism
    • Three Types of Web Software
    • Static
      • Example: HTML text/image page
      • Communicative process: computer to students
    • Dynamic/Interactive
      • Example: Buttons, Paths, Quiz
      • Communicative process: between computer/student
    • Networked (Shared Database)
      • Example: Community portal
      • Communicative process: student to student
  • Community Portals
    • Open Source
      • Allows cross-university collaboration
      • Allows customisation
      • Allows creative module building
      • Can integrate *all* language learning software
      • Low cost
    • Not “Moodle”, but…
      • Cross-platform, open-source, language-learning community-building, class-administrative space
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • Kanda University of International Studies Blended Learning Classrooms
  •  
  •  
  • Wireless Campus
    • What is our situation?
    • Two CALL rooms til now
    • Expansion from
    • 2 >> 35 CALL rooms
  • SGU Wireless Campus
    • Former CALL Rooms (before 2005.4.1)
    • Current CALL Rooms (after 2005.4.1)
    第2 CALL 室  A-201 第1 CALL 室 A-202 C-302 C-301 C-206 C-205 C-204 C-307 C-306 C-305 C-304 C-303 C-203 C-202 C-201 B-202 B-201 A-202 A-201 A-318 A-317 A-316 A-315 A-314 A-313 A-312 A-311 A-310 A-309 A-308 A-307 A-306 A-305 A-304 A-303 A-302 A-301
    • One Laptop Per Child (NGO) http://laptop.media.mit.edu/
    On November 16th, Kofi Annan announced the $100 laptop for all children campaign. Hundreds of millions of wireless laptops will be built for children all across the world. National governments will provide these learning tools for $100 per child or less.
  •  
  • Research Design
    • Research Paradigm
    • Data Collection
    • Data Analysis
    • Site Selection
    • Positionality
    • Validity
  • Research Paradigms
    • post-positivist, qualitative view
    • constructivist, ecological learning perspective
    • multiple paradigms
      • both intersubjectivity and interobjectivity
    • critical and pragmatic stance
  • Research Paradigms
  • Research Design
        • Data Collection
            • Action Research
            • Autoethnography
        • Data Analysis
            • Actor Network Theory
  • Site Selection
    • Criteria
      • EFL in university setting
      • Location irrelevent, or less immaterial to framework being studied
      • Sites chosen for convenience and active use of blended learning
    • Locations: Three universities in Japan
      • General English, Shakai Joho, at SGU
      • Kanda University of International Studies
      • Kyoto Sangyo University
  • Research Design I Community of practice Decisions and justifications of stakeholders Group aims and interests Conflicts, challenges, emergencies Units of Analysis: Themes of Intersubjectivity Roles/actions of all actors Boundaries/responsibilities, negotiation spaces Size of actors Micro (self, teacher, task, course, classroom) and, Macro (curriculum, faculty, campus, environment) Units of Analysis: Themes of Interobjectivity
  • Research Design II
        • Site Comparison—Cycles, Methodology, Participants, Data Collection, Data Analysis
    Same observation interview materials/interface Research team Administrators Teachers, students Dept. Case Study -Engl. curriculum, -multiple teachers 1 week+ onsite KU Cycle 2 2006-2007 Role, task, time, venue analysis. Movements and boundaries observation interview materials/interface Research team Administrators Teachers, students Dept. Case Study -Engl. curriculum, -multiple teachers 1 week+ onsite KU Cycle 1 2005-2006 Same teacher diaries observation interview materials/interface Research team Students Software engineers Nested Case Study -three classes -single LMS mod 2 semesters onsite SGU Cycle 2 2006-2007 Role, task, time, venue analysis. Movements and boundaries teacher diaries observation interview materials/interface Research team Students Software engineers Nested Case Study -three classes -single LMS mod 2 semesters onsite SGU Cycle 1 2005-2006 critical incidents innovations key issues diary, blog Researcher Autoethnography 40 years continual Home/office 1970-2010 Data Analysis Methods Data Collection Methods Participants Methodology Cycles Site
  • Research Design III: Positionality Outsider working with insiders 5 Research team Administrators Teachers, students KU-2 campus Outsider working with insiders 5 Research team Administrators Teachers, students KU-1 campus Insider team 2 Research team Students Software team SGU-2 classroom Insider team 2 Research team Students Software team SGU-1 classroom Insider alone 1 Researcher Home/office Positionality Description Positionality Level Participants Site
  • Research Design IV: Validity 30% Is the research accepted for publication, in-house, nationally, internationally? Does the research create a dialogue amongst researchers, practitioners? How? What degree? KU-SGU Dialogic Validity 20% Are silenced actors given voice in the process? Are teachers and students empowered? Are technophobic teachers/students represented? KU-SGU Democratic Validity 30% Is the research recognized across the department, and to other departments, causing further change? KU-SGU Catalytic Validity 15% Does the cycle lead to further problem identification? Does triangulation work well? KU-SGU Process Validity Can a low level English class benefit from blended learning? Low cost/student satisfaction/learning? SGU 5% Does the research identify a problem and does the agreed upon action move to resolve it? KU Outcome Validity Importance Questions of Validity Site Type of Validity
  • Next Steps
    • Regional Conference Keynote--October 2005
    • KU Field Visit--November 2005
    • SGU Classes Arrangement--April, 2006
    • Retrospective Journal Writing
    • Supervisor/Colleague Meetings
    • National Conference/Publications
  • Conclusions (preliminary)
    • Teaching Theory is moving to…
        • X SLI/SLA Second Language Instruction/Acquisition
        • O SLS - Second Language Socialisation primary focus, blended with SLI & SLA
    • Teaching Methods are moving to…
        • X from drill & practice learning
        • O to project & community-based learning focu,
        • blended with drill, skill, and cognitive learning
    • Teaching Technology is moving to…
        • X from language laboratories, CD software
        • O to wireless hardware, web-based software,
        • community servers blended with face-to-face technogies
  • Conclusions (preliminary)
    • Second Language Pedagogy is moving to…
        • X Face-to-face learning
        • (lectures, pair conversation)
        • X Online learning
        • (e-learning, laboratories)
        • O Blended learning
        • (simultaneous online/face-to-face)
  • Blended Learning 対面学習とオンライン学習の統合 Action removes the doubt that theory cannot solve. Sun Tzu
  • “ irankarapte”
    • A Hokkaido-Ainu word meaning…
    • “ welcome” or literally…
    • “ may I touch your mind”
  • Initial Findings
    • e-learning is no longer the trend for universities
      • e-learning is expensive
      • e-leaning is time-consuming
      • e-learning is difficult for many students
          • students have many learning styles
          • group-oriented, auditory, expressive students don’t fit
      • yet e-learning is still powerful
          • searching ability
          • timely, up-to-date material
          • human-to-human interaction
  • Hypothesis
    • Combine power of face-to-face learning
    • with power of online learning
    • “ blended” learning
    • not e-learning >> “b-learning”
    • common sense approach
      • Step-by-step: add a little internet slowly
      • Low cost: use existing technology
      • Fit all student learning styles
  • Table 1: Terminology Used in Describing Blended and Non-blended Learning Blended learning Distance education Face-to-face education ET Griffith et al (2005) ICT-supported learning Virtual contexts Actual contexts CSCL Richards (2005) Blended learning Electronic-format training Instructor-led training HRD Bersin (2004) ---- Internet tasks Classroom instruction SLA Leaver & Willis (2004) ---- Computer-based Teacher-led SLA Skehan (2003) Integrated CALL CALL ---- CALL Gruba (2003); Bax (2003) ---- CALL Classroom CALL Chapelle (2001) ---- Network-based Classroom-based CALL Kern & Warschauer (2000) Integrative CALL Computer laboratory Classroom CALL Warshauer & Healey (1998) ---- CALL Non-CALL, Classroom CALL Levy (1997) Global learning environment Virtual classrooms Real classrooms CALL Barson & Debski (1996) Combined venue Computer-oriented venue Non-computer oriented venue Field Author