learning - Academic Conferences Limited
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

learning - Academic Conferences Limited

learning - Academic Conferences Limited learning - Academic Conferences Limited

academic.conferences.org
from academic.conferences.org More from this publisher
27.06.2013 Views

Arno Louw It should be clearly stated that this is personal access to these technologies and the interpretation to the question is often confused with “owning” the technology rather than have actual access. In addition, many students have access to computers and the Internet via hotspots in residences, per immediate family households or communes, or at home where a computer is shared by many people. Informal discussions with students brought forth that the computer is used for social networking (e.g. Facebook) and gaming, yet applications such as the word processor, and spread sheet is never used for formal writing although presentation software is not all that unfamiliar to them. Hence figure 4 reveals the computer proficiency of current second and first year students. Bearing all said in mind, Baby Boomers were taught by the Traditionalists (born during 1930 – 1949), in accordance with the behaviourist theory, i.e. rote memorisation. Baby Boomers rebelled against this format and taught Generation X in line with the cognitivist approach to teaching and learning. Rote memorisation still forms the cornerstone of the cognitivist approach, but it goes one step further in that the information that was memorised then is used by applying it to a set of facts as one would experience it in real life. Generation Y’s education follows the social constructivist approach, which strongly relies on collaborative learning, which taps neatly into Generation Y’s preference for working in groups. Even more so, the learning theory of Connectivism emerges from the learning styles of these students (Siemens 2005). This trend, in teaching and learning in society, enlightens our paradigm for understanding the learning needs of our students. Figure 2: Computer proficiency of first years 2010 – 2011 (comparison) These students adapt easy to e-learning when analysed against the diffusion theory and are classified in five categories, namely: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards (Keller & Cernerud 2002). In addition, familiarity with e-learning, an LMS, and ICTs as components of e-learning, are largely accepted by modern students. In a later study, Buzzetto-More (2008) finds that: “When prior educational exposure [to e-learning components] was examined, the majority of students indicated that they had used a computer to solve a problem as part of a class assignment, participated in group work that involved using computer software, and delivered a presentation using computer software.” She also found that “students’ perceptions and experiences with online learning were similar to findings reported from studies conducted at majority institutions where students have reported that they want to see traditional learning supported by e-learning strategies; however, faceto-face instruction is preferred over fully online learning.” (op. cit.). 4.2 Pedagogical design for blended learning interventions The affordance of the Web bears the following constraints that must be addressed as it influences the theory behind applying learning in the online environment. Anderson (2004) describes the following 426

Arno Louw limitations that I will list without an in depth discussion as it is recognisable and contentious within the South African educational realm. Anderson (2004) proffers the following model that shows the types of online interaction that occurs in a virtual educational environment. By using the model in Figure 3, online instructors and designers are faced with crucial decisions based on different learning outcomes that will be best learned through specific types of learning activities in an online environment. The decision on the design of the different learning activities, as part of the instructional design process, arguably is not based on how learners learn but rather on How do they learn what? Figure 3: Online learning and types of interaction (Anderson, 2004:49) 4.2.1 The dimension of user activity Two stereotypes of learning environments are distinguished, namely, mathemagenic and generative. These types of learning environments also become the distinguishable ranges on the continuum in the pedagogical dimension of user activity. Reeves (1997) describes a mathemagenic environment, according to Hannifin (1992), to “access various representations of content.” Contrarily, other generative learning environments are described to “engage learners in the process of creating, elaborating or representing knowledge.” (op. cit). I draw on a conclusion that the online learning environment should attempt to become more generative in its nature. The environment should by nature attempts to engage both learners and facilitators to interactively mentor, facilitate and promote peer discussions and participation, and is socially constructivistic. Furthermore, the activities should be designed to introduce virtual and mental collaboration tools to the participants. Reeves (1997) substantiates by stating that “Generative learning environments are aligned more closely with contructivist pedagogy whereas mathemagenic environments are often based on instructivist pedagogy, but is not necessarily always obvious.” Thus, the activity design becomes cardinal in the promotion of constructivist pedagogy in blended learning. 4.2.2 The dimension of learner control This pedagogical dimension has been the most researched as a topic. This dimension ranges from allowing learners to have control by allowing them to “make decisions about what sections to study and/or what paths to follow through interactive material.” (Reeves 1997). The range in this pedagogical dimension varies the continuum from unrestricted to non-existent. Furthermore, an accurate explanation of this dimension is given by Powell (2000) stating that the issue of control “is 427

Arno Louw<br />

limitations that I will list without an in depth discussion as it is recognisable and contentious within the<br />

South African educational realm.<br />

Anderson (2004) proffers the following model that shows the types of online interaction that occurs in<br />

a virtual educational environment.<br />

By using the model in Figure 3, online instructors and designers are faced with crucial decisions<br />

based on different <strong>learning</strong> outcomes that will be best learned through specific types of <strong>learning</strong><br />

activities in an online environment. The decision on the design of the different <strong>learning</strong> activities, as<br />

part of the instructional design process, arguably is not based on how learners learn but rather on<br />

How do they learn what?<br />

Figure 3: Online <strong>learning</strong> and types of interaction (Anderson, 2004:49)<br />

4.2.1 The dimension of user activity<br />

Two stereotypes of <strong>learning</strong> environments are distinguished, namely, mathemagenic and generative.<br />

These types of <strong>learning</strong> environments also become the distinguishable ranges on the continuum in<br />

the pedagogical dimension of user activity. Reeves (1997) describes a mathemagenic environment,<br />

according to Hannifin (1992), to “access various representations of content.” Contrarily, other<br />

generative <strong>learning</strong> environments are described to “engage learners in the process of creating,<br />

elaborating or representing knowledge.” (op. cit). I draw on a conclusion that the online <strong>learning</strong><br />

environment should attempt to become more generative in its nature. The environment should by<br />

nature attempts to engage both learners and facilitators to interactively mentor, facilitate and promote<br />

peer discussions and participation, and is socially constructivistic. Furthermore, the activities should<br />

be designed to introduce virtual and mental collaboration tools to the participants. Reeves (1997)<br />

substantiates by stating that “Generative <strong>learning</strong> environments are aligned more closely with<br />

contructivist pedagogy whereas mathemagenic environments are often based on instructivist<br />

pedagogy, but is not necessarily always obvious.” Thus, the activity design becomes cardinal in the<br />

promotion of constructivist pedagogy in blended <strong>learning</strong>.<br />

4.2.2 The dimension of learner control<br />

This pedagogical dimension has been the most researched as a topic. This dimension ranges from<br />

allowing learners to have control by allowing them to “make decisions about what sections to study<br />

and/or what paths to follow through interactive material.” (Reeves 1997). The range in this<br />

pedagogical dimension varies the continuum from unrestricted to non-existent. Furthermore, an<br />

accurate explanation of this dimension is given by Powell (2000) stating that the issue of control “is<br />

427

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!