(1) The document discusses trends in education including changing demographics and the rise of digital technologies. (2) It proposes a model of "we-learning" where learning is participative, collaborative, and occurs everywhere with everyone through connected learning experiences. (3) An example is described where a professor created video lectures and interactive activities about aerodynamics to better engage students and allow peer-to-peer learning beyond the classroom.

1. 1
Assoc Prof Daniel Tan
Centre for Excellence for Learning & Teaching
http://www.celt.ntu.edu.sg
e: ethtan@ntu.edu.sg
we-Learning:
Participative • Collaborative • Sustainable
Presentation for
Digital Education Show KL
27 May 2013

2. Learningwe-
Learning is
Everywhere
with Everybody!

3. Why?

4. Trends, Pull and Push:
All Experiencing Rapid Change
Technology
Globalization
Demography

5. Demography: Era and People
• Traditionalists: born prior to 1946
– Brand and retail store loyal, gone through the depression
and war
• Baby Boomers: born 1946-64
– Reminded to eat the plate clean. Into home and kitchens
upgrade; enjoys gourmet food
• Generation X: born 1965-81
– Likes to be educated and informed; no major enduring
hard 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

6. Gen Y, Millennials, Net Generation
• Tech savvy
• Continually connected with
IM, SMS
• Socially connected with
devices
• Cosmopolitan
• Influenced by peers
• Short attention span
• Skim text and information
quickly
• Achievement oriented
• Seek recognition, fame and
feedback
• Wants meaningful work and
a solid learning curve
• Team-Oriented
• Value teamwork and seek
the input and affirmation of
others
• Loyal, committed and wants
to be included and involved

7. What
are
we
thinking?

8. The Big
Picture

9. 9
Unique in Education
Performance Curve
Fact #1:
Education
does not
guarantee
its
products….
NoofStudents
Performance Distribution
:
ABCD
PassFail
F

10. 10
NoofStudents
Performance Distribution
-- Traditional
-- eLearning
Fact #2:
Effectiveness
of traditional
face-to-face
learning and
eLearning is
about the
same
Means, B et al (2010), Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis
and Review of Online Learning Studies, U.S. Department of Education, Revised September 2010

11. 11
Effectiveness – the mature model
α - more students
doing better (peak-
to-peak)
β - better mean student
performance
∂ - higher performance
ρ - lower failure rates
NoofStudents
Performance Distribution
α
β
ρ ∂

12. 12
If we can reverse engineer the outcome,
what can we do?NoofStudents
Performance Distribution
Starting with
the end in
mind, what
can we do to
achieve this
desired
outcome?

13. Thomas C. Reeves
Professor Emeritus of
Learning, Design and
Technology
University of Georgia
2007 NTU Annual Staff Seminar: from good to GREAT
When an
instructor
teaches,
but no one
learns,
has he taught?
You have
taught them;
Have they learnt?
App
mLearning
Courseware

14. Quality from Different Perspectives
• Quality of content
– Usually not the issue
– Standard textbooks,
derivative material,
multimedia courseware
– Library
– Open Educational
Resources
• Quality of teaching
process
– Professional & faculty
development
– Teaching evaluation
• Quality of the (self-
directed) learning
process
– Impact on
• Student performance,
• Institutional
reputation
• Student value-add
quality
You have taught them have they learnt?

15. Quality of Content
Quality of Teaching
Quality of Learning

16. New Pedagogy:
Quality
in
Learning

17. Learning Quality via Social Learning
Learning is Everywhere with Everyone

18. Teacher
Didactic
Communicator
Knowledge transfer
Content
Textbook
Courseware
Learner
Receptor
Current
Mode

19. Teacher
Facilitator
Curator
Content
Textbook
Courseware
Learner
Content
Internet
Web
OER
Video Lectures
Emerging Model
• Participative
• Collaborative
Learner

20. Participative Learning to enhance
Learning Quality
Hake, R. R., (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test
data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64- 74
UniWood

21. What
are
we
doing?

22. Campus-wide
Lecture Capture
Project

23. 23
Night scene of Nanyang Auditorium

24. Recorded Lecture

25. Mobile Learning:
Lecture Recording
Learning is Everywhere!

26. Target: Campus-wide Full
Capacity Recording
Qty Description
No. of
Recordings
40 number of LT locations 40
8 hours 320
5 days 1,600
13 weeks 20,800
2 semesters 41,600

27. and the HELP Model
• Learning Activities Management System
– Open-source software developed by
Macquarie University
• Easy to use; drag-and-drop interface
• Rapid content design development
• Many learning activity tools, supporting
interactive pedagogy
• HELP Model: Highly Engaged Learning
Pedagogy
– Enabled by pedagogically-driven activities
– Integrated into edveNTUre

28. Platform for Learning Design
• Focus on learning process, not just
content (and a little less on
teaching)
• Implicit collaborative Learning
Activities in the design process
• Can incorporate single learner
content and collaborative tasks
– Discussion, voting, small group debate,
etc
• “Wrap” Learning Objects with a
sequence of collaborative tasks
• Learning Designs can be stored, re-
used, re-purposed, customised
28
Learning
Process
Learning
Activities
Collaborative
Tasks
Individual
learner with
group
activities
Re-purposed
easily

30. Course Materials Presentation Interface
Learning Activity Links

31. Course Material Presentation: LAMS

32. Participation and Engagement:
Creating Purpose
To widen my understanding.

33. Student Engagement , Thoughts, Feedback,
Comments and other Responses

34. Teaching Paradigm
• Traditional Approach
– Teacher teach
– Students listen and
learn
– Assignments are given
– Assignments are
submitted for marking
– Students read their
marked assignments
Participative Model
– Teacher teach
– Students listen and
learn
– Assignments are given
– Students participates
online (content co-
creation)
– Students read their
own and other peer
contributions

35. Show me
another
example

36. Example: Experimental Aerodynamics
• Background:
– Professor interested in developing a package to
help students better understand wind and water
tunnels in exploring aerodynamics
– Limitation: wind and water tunnel facility cannot
accommodate class of 140 enrolled students
– Solution: professor create documentary-style
video to induct students to wind and water
tunnels

37. An example involving
Experimental Aerodynamics

38. An example involving
Experimental Aerodynamics

39. An example involving
Experimental Aerodynamics

40. • Multiple varied answers to
the same question
• Good, poor, incomplete,
right, wrong, partial, model
answers

41. So?
What does all this
mean?

42. Findings: Quality of we-Learning
• View video course content segmentation + interactive
learning 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 and
assessment and latent feedback
• Develops more discerning learners
• Professors have a better gauge of students’ learning

43. Quality Outcomes of we-Learning
Activities
• Responses read by class-mates
enhances students’ learning
• Students learn from each other - peer
learning and peer assessment
• Students compare their responses with
other students  awareness of
different responses to same question
and learning amplification
• Student develops (higher order critical
thinking skills) judgment on response
quality
• Cover  Discover
Know & Share
(Content Co-creation)
Compare
Learn &
Connect
Judgment
&
Discernment

44. we-Learning
Learning is
Everywhere with
Everyone

45. Assoc Prof Daniel Tan
Centre for Excellence in Learning & Teaching
http://www.celt.ntu.edu.sg
e: ethtan@ntu.edu.sg