1Assoc Prof Daniel TanCentre for Excellence for Learning & Teachinghttp://www.celt.ntu.edu.sge: email@example.com-Learning:Participative • Collaborative • SustainablePresentation forDigital Education Show KL27 May 2013
Trends, Pull and Push:All Experiencing Rapid ChangeTechnologyGlobalizationDemography
Demography: Era and People• Traditionalists: born prior to 1946– Brand and retail store loyal, gone through the depressionand war• Baby Boomers: born 1946-64– Reminded to eat the plate clean. Into home and kitchensupgrade; enjoys gourmet food• Generation X: born 1965-81– Likes to be educated and informed; no major enduringhard economical times• Gen Y, Net-Geners/Millenials: born 1982-2000 (13 -31)– Live, breath, shop, link up on the web. Well informed.– Our students on campus• Gen Z: born after 2001 (below 12)– Group activities– Multi-cultural, experiential, media-savvy
Gen Y, Millennials, Net Generation• Tech savvy• Continually connected withIM, SMS• Socially connected withdevices• Cosmopolitan• Influenced by peers• Short attention span• Skim text and informationquickly• Achievement oriented• Seek recognition, fame andfeedback• Wants meaningful work anda solid learning curve• Team-Oriented• Value teamwork and seekthe input and affirmation ofothers• Loyal, committed and wantsto be included and involved
9Unique in EducationPerformance CurveFact #1:Educationdoes notguaranteeitsproducts….NoofStudentsPerformance Distribution:ABCDPassFailF
10NoofStudentsPerformance Distribution-- Traditional-- eLearningFact #2:Effectivenessof traditionalface-to-facelearning andeLearning isabout thesameMeans, B et al (2010), Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysisand Review of Online Learning Studies, U.S. Department of Education, Revised September 2010
11Effectiveness – the mature modelα - more studentsdoing better (peak-to-peak)β - better mean studentperformance∂ - higher performanceρ - lower failure ratesNoofStudentsPerformance Distributionαβρ ∂
12If we can reverse engineer the outcome,what can we do?NoofStudentsPerformance DistributionStarting withthe end inmind, whatcan we do toachieve thisdesiredoutcome?
Thomas C. ReevesProfessor Emeritus ofLearning, Design andTechnologyUniversity of Georgia2007 NTU Annual Staff Seminar: from good to GREATWhen aninstructorteaches,but no onelearns,has he taught?You havetaught them;Have they learnt?AppmLearningCourseware
Quality from Different Perspectives• Quality of content– Usually not the issue– Standard textbooks,derivative material,multimedia courseware– Library– Open EducationalResources• Quality of teachingprocess– Professional & facultydevelopment– Teaching evaluation• Quality of the (self-directed) learningprocess– Impact on• Student performance,• Institutionalreputation• Student value-addqualityYou have taught them have they learnt?
Quality of ContentQuality of TeachingQuality of Learning
Participative Learning to enhanceLearning QualityHake, R. R., (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics testdata for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64- 74UniWood
Mobile Learning:Lecture RecordingLearning is Everywhere!
Target: Campus-wide FullCapacity RecordingQty DescriptionNo. ofRecordings40 number of LT locations 408 hours 3205 days 1,60013 weeks 20,8002 semesters 41,600
and the HELP Model• Learning Activities Management System– Open-source software developed byMacquarie University• Easy to use; drag-and-drop interface• Rapid content design development• Many learning activity tools, supportinginteractive pedagogy• HELP Model: Highly Engaged LearningPedagogy– Enabled by pedagogically-driven activities– Integrated into edveNTUre
Platform for Learning Design• Focus on learning process, not justcontent (and a little less onteaching)• Implicit collaborative LearningActivities in the design process• Can incorporate single learnercontent and collaborative tasks– Discussion, voting, small group debate,etc• “Wrap” Learning Objects with asequence of collaborative tasks• Learning Designs can be stored, re-used, re-purposed, customised28LearningProcessLearningActivitiesCollaborativeTasksIndividuallearner withgroupactivitiesRe-purposedeasily
Participation and Engagement:Creating PurposeTo widen my understanding.
Student Engagement , Thoughts, Feedback,Comments and other Responses
Teaching Paradigm• Traditional Approach– Teacher teach– Students listen andlearn– Assignments are given– Assignments aresubmitted for marking– Students read theirmarked assignmentsParticipative Model– Teacher teach– Students listen andlearn– Assignments are given– Students participatesonline (content co-creation)– Students read theirown and other peercontributions
Example: Experimental Aerodynamics• Background:– Professor interested in developing a package tohelp students better understand wind and watertunnels in exploring aerodynamics– Limitation: wind and water tunnel facility cannotaccommodate class of 140 enrolled students– Solution: professor create documentary-stylevideo to induct students to wind and watertunnels
Findings: Quality of we-Learning• View video course content segmentation + interactivelearning activities + group participation– More engagement as more senses are used– More active participation– More thought– More reflections• More self-directed learning• More peer-peer collaborative learning andassessment and latent feedback• Develops more discerning learners• Professors have a better gauge of students’ learning
Quality Outcomes of we-LearningActivities• Responses read by class-matesenhances students’ learning• Students learn from each other - peerlearning and peer assessment• Students compare their responses withother students awareness ofdifferent responses to same questionand learning amplification• Student develops (higher order criticalthinking skills) judgment on responsequality• Cover DiscoverKnow & Share(Content Co-creation)CompareLearn &ConnectJudgment&Discernment