Transcript
Conditions for self-organizing and creativity in blended learning environments Petro Poutanen, Olli Parviainen, Leif Åberg The paper has been published in On The Horizon Special New Media Edition: Poutanen, P.K. & Parviainen, O. & Åberg, L Conditions for self-organizing and creativity in blended learning environments, On The Horizon Special New Media Edition. 1. Introduction Information and communication technology (ICT) has become an essential part of a university education. Given the speed of technical development and rapid growth of information and knowledge, it is obvious that higher education will undergo transformative innovations in the 21 st century (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). One of the educational innovations that is gaining increasing support is called blended/hybrid learning. The blended learning approach mixes different platforms of learning typically virtual and physical in order to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of a learning experience (Bonk & Graham, 2005; Garrison & Kanuka, 2004). For example, in the University of Helsinki there are two virtual learning platforms in use: Basic Support for Cooperative Work (BSCW) and Moodle 1. Both are web-based workspaces and provide areas for chatting, sharing files, inviting members, using calendars etc. The idea behind the online platforms is to enhance the interaction between students and teachers. It is intuitively appealing to think that better technology will produce better learning through successful blending operations. 2 According to a somewhat old belief, the core argument for blended learning claims that, once there are solid understandings of the properties of the Internet, as well as knowledge of how to effectively integrate Internet technology with the most desirable and valued characteristics of face-to-face learning experiences, a quantum shift occurs in terms of the nature and quality of the educational experience (Garrison & Kanuka, 2004, 97). Without trying to be a devil s advocate, we argue that there are still some obstacles on the road to this quantum shift, and these are not merely technical but more theoretical in nature. There have been a slew of new models and technologies, such as social media services, but we may have been expecting too much of new technology at the expense of theorizing. Technical tools alone are not enough to give rise to the potential synergy of people and different environments, which is the idea behind blending. If online learning platforms cannot be meaningfully blended with face-to-face learning activities, they will be no more than complementary tools for file-sharing and management, operating alongside traditional learning approaches. There are at least three possible reasons why the quantum leap has not yet happened: 1) various techniques of blending have not been successful enough to meet the goals of a meaningful learning experience; 2) the technology provided has not been good enough to provide added value to the learning experience; and 3) we do not know what the properties of the Internet are, how they can be used and consumed and what the possible benefits would be. We tend to think that teachers lack both understanding and the skills required for technology-related teaching. We believe that there is much benefit to be gained from blending different on- and offline environments, and in this article, we will provide both practical and theoretical suggestions. But first of all, we need to change the traditional mindset of learning and technology and begin to see that: technology has no intrinsic value; the tools must fit with the tasks and the context of learning, not the other way around, and the discourse of learning as a function of teaching is obsolete; learning cannot be managed or governed, only facilitated. If this is the case, as we suggest, what can be done about it? How should we then understand blending, for example, in the context of institutionalized education? Based on experiences derived from a blended learning course organized in a university setting, we propose a new model for self-organized learning. Drawing from theories of complexity, creativity and learning, we set about to construct a framework for learning creatively in the digital age. The course used in this case study was conducted on the basis of a few simple rules which enabled students to self-organize around different work spaces and technologies. At the core of the course was the principle that students are free to make their own choices about the issues and tools they are willing to work with. No predetermined directions were given for the use of a particular kind of media or application. The authors of this article were a part of the organizing team of the course. Therefore, as this study is a part of our own learning, which is still continuing, this paper will have a sense of self-reflexivity in it Self-organizing, learning, and various environments Before detailing the case and the model, we will discuss the basic concepts used in the paper. We are presenting these definitions provocatively and in the spirit of the arguments we made above. As an approach to understanding the dynamic interaction of learners, we present here the complex system framework which is based on the concept of self-organizing. A complex system is understood as a system that is composed of two or more agents and that represents self-organizing behavior. Self-organizing refers to a system s ability to create its own organization, independent of top-down control, by following a set of simple rules that enables collaboration (Mitchell, 2009, 13). This collaborative action is prominent in natural and biological systems, such as ant colonies, flocks of birds, cellular metabolism, etc. Ants, for instance, by following simple communicative rules, are collaboratively able to perform complex tasks, such as constructing a nest or tracing food (see Bonabeau et al, 1999). The complexity, thus, is an attribute of this collaborative action emerging from local interactions and increasing to global patterns of behavior (Hollad, 1995). This bottom-up emergence of order is also likely to take influence from the system as whole, that is, top-down. This means that there is a reciprocal influence between the system and the constituting agents. Therefore we say the system is co-evolving (Mitleton-Kelly, 2003, 41). These are some of the most obvious features that make the behavior of a complex system complex and hard to understand and describe let alone predict. Learning is commonly defined as a change in an individual s or group s knowledge, skills or interaction (Salazar, 2002). So, the question is when and how this change happens. Our claim is that the change in individuals or groups knowledge will take place when they experience value or novelty in a given context. This act is shaped by the goals and context of learning and is influenced by personal experiences, cognitive skills and patterns of social interaction. We parallel this act of finding to psychological creativity (see e.g. Boden, 2004, 2), in which individuals (or a group) learn or invent something that is new and valuable for them. Thus, it follows that learning is a creative process in which peoples create or co-create the content of learning together. We also argue that the dynamics of teaching and learning should be understood as co-learning instead of an information exchange process. In the ICT age, no single person can hold all the information needed to define the object of learning. That is, most reallife situations and problems are not in their nature simple, but rather complex, interconnected and evolving. Therefore, we need to admit that a teacher is also a part of the process of learning, thus making the whole undertaking more of co-learning than the dialectics of learning and teaching. For example, learners might hold local knowledge or skills that a teacher does not have, and if this knowledge is not surfaced, the potential scope of the learning is narrowed. To remove this deficiency, we should be able to change teachers and learners mindsets from sender-receivers to co-learners and cocreators. This is not an easy task, as the traditional roles are deep-rooted and constantly enforced even by the architecture of both virtual and physical learning environments. We have already suggested that learning cannot be managed and thus cannot be merely the function of teaching. However, it does not follow that teachers are worthless in the digital age. Quite the contrary, teachers are of the utmost importance. However, their role is not only to transfer knowledge to learners (or for their construction ), but to support and enable the conditions for learners to self-organize and achieve the goals of learning. This task is similar to what we call facilitating. Facilitating is the act of making things happening easier. Consequently, a teacher s role is to facilitate the conditions of self-organizing for learning and creativity to emerge. Finally, we argue that the dichotomy made between a virtual and physical learning environment that is, of a digital working space and a classroom is misleading. This is the case because we cannot foretell what environment (say, an online chat board) would best fit for each learning challenge. Because learning is an unpredictable and surprising process, it is ineffective to set the context for learning top-down. Instead, we propose a multi-level, boundary-free context for learning that evolves with the focus and need of the process. Smart phones and other handheld devices have already blurred the boundary between virtual and physical in everyday interactions. Thus, recreating this divide in learning situations is artificial and goes against the natural way of using digital devices. Here the complex system framework with related concepts serves as a theoretical tool to conceptualize and understand the self-organizing behavior in our case-course. Throughout the course, our goal was to give participants the freedom to make decisions on topics and content. We considered participants (including ourselves) as a group of agents that can organize themselves around different issues. We decided not to plan the content of the course beforehand, but only framed the general goals for the each session and updated them if needed. Yet we did not just let it go, but directed the process by giving continuous support and feedback about progress. Thus, the learning took place within the frame of reference, which was continuously constituted by the participants and facilitated by us. Within this context, every learner was able to search for creative solutions both at personal- and group-level and by using multiple environments. 3. Method The method employed in this study can be viewed as grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). As distinct from the traditional inductive approach, our research process can be described as iteration in which researchers cycle back and forth between process theory and process data to produce process knowledge (Orton, 1997, 419). Iterative grounded theory is a technique that shares some common features of inductive and deductive strategies: a researcher iterates between data and theories, at the same time moving the focus of a research gradually from data to analysis and final models that bind them together (ibid.). In this case study, our data consist of experiences, observations, collected course feedback and documented online materials. The experiences, observations and feedback from the course were first discussed among the organizers. Then the experiences from the course were further reflected on by investigating the online content of the course. 4 The comprehensive picture developed was finally linked with relevant theories which are discussed throughout this article. As a part of the requirements of the course, the participants were asked to reflect on their own learning processes within the groups and provide an account of their work process. These reflections were then shared in a common blog platform. Those accounts were also analysed. 4. Case description The case-example is based on the graduate-level university course The new dimensions of organizational communication. The course was held in the spring 2010 for the duration of three months and was arranged by the Department of Communication in the University of Helsinki. The main focus was on exploring the possible new areas of organizational communication and applying new concepts to practical issues provided by the four case-companies. The case-example is presented to illustrate how self-organizing can happen in the context of blended learning. 5 The course had two conceptual goals: first, to break new ground for the field of organizational communication, and secondly, to gain knowledge of new theories and experiences of applying them in practice. In addition, a blended learning strategy was adopted to provide online working resources. At the general level, the idea was to set up a course that would be close to students everyday life and at the same time connected to both practical and theoretical issues. The following rules were applied during the course. 1. Students decide the contents of the course and gather data by themselves. 2. Facilitation is used to enrich collaboration. 3. Companies are asked to get involved and collaborate. 4. Students will be working with experienced people from working life. 5. Knowledge production takes place mainly online. 6. Everyone can participate through the virtual platform and access the material freely. 7. Experiences from the course will be further developed. 6 There was a total of 24 students in the course, 10 practitioners, and six teachers/facilitators. The course consisted of six physical meetings, of which two were held at the university and four at different locations provided by participating companies. One lecture was held online. The central platform for co-ordination was a Facebookgroup, which attracted 235 members by the end of the course. All the materials, reports and work-process descriptions were published online and were free to access by everyone. The students divided into four theme groups at the start of the course. The themes were not predefined and were identified by the students at the beginning of the course. This increased their motivation as the content and the angle of the approach was chosen not imposed on by the students. During the course, students were encouraged to test and share new technological platforms. Next, we will present a brief introduction of the platforms used and the way they were used in the course: 1. Facebook: The world s most popular social networking site, Facebook was chosen as the central co-ordination platform because it has wide penetration among students, barriers for entry are low and it offers a wide array of ways for interaction. During the planning phase before the course, attention was focused on potential privacy issues of Facebook. However, the benefits of using an everyday tool instead of introducing a totally new one outweighed possible concerns. No objection on privacy grounds was raised during or after the course. Facebook proved to be a good coordination platform as long as the basic structure and ways for interaction were defined. However, for collaboration purposes Facebook had challenges: following conversations was not easy and possibilities for file exchange were limited Traditional was used for informing students about sudden changes and notifications concerning the course. Also private matters were conducted via On-site meetings: On-site meetings were an integral part of the course s practical approach. The participating companies provided facilities and practical problems to address. The learners approached the problems from perspectives chosen beforehand. 4. Etherpad (Piratepad): Collaborative online text editor. The service shut down during the course but was quickly replaced by another similar service Piratepad. Piratepad was used by some of the work groups for producing reports and recording discussions. 5. Prezi: Prezi is a presentation editor that provides an intuitive presentation mode. During the on-site meetings Prezi was also used as a mind mapping tool to facilitate conversations. Some of the participants found it also useful in integrating and making sense of a big amount of information at the early stage of group work. 6. Slideshare: Although the majority of the theme group presentations were made with Prezi, Powerpoint was also used. Slideshare is an easy way for sharing Powerpoint slides in a browser. 7. Dropbox: Dropbox provides an easy way to share files. In the course it was used together with other platforms to share files of different formats. 8. Google docs: Collaborative platform to share and edit documents, spreadsheets and presentations. Groups used the tool as a complementary tool for Piratepad. Google docs provides multiple visibility options to control the privacy of the documents. 9. Blogs: The groups summarized their findings from the course in the course blog. One of the guiding principles was to share information publicly and collect feedback for it ndLife: Second Life is an online virtual world where interaction happens through avatars. The course made a field trip to explore the possibilities of such virtual environments. 5. Case analysis In this section we briefly discuss on the working processes of the groups and the role of the organizing team. Responsibility for organizing work in the groups was given to the groups themselves. The groups were encouraged to share their work processes openly. This provides a good window on how the groups utilized online and offline working methods. It is striking how similar the working methods and utilization of the tools were: all of the groups started with a face-to-face meeting but soon moved on to more asymmetric ways of communicating. Facebook was popular in the early stages of the working process. Group members shared ideas and links, but did not use Facebook as a working environment. Google docs, Etherpad and a blog were used as an online forum for crafting action plans, creating content and sketching presentations. One group singled out the blog as a visually more pleasing platform as one could easily share pictures, videos and links. The role of Facebook decreased the more focused the groups efforts became. This development was also illustrated in the language of the groups: past tense became more common and language generally more reflective. The organizing team participated little in the groups work. Mainly the organizers role was to answer questions and provide general information and assignments. This however did not mean a passive role on the contrary. Each of the organizing team members had responsibility for a certain group. This meant active listening and reacting on emerging issues. The organizing team shared these issues to prevent the rise of similar problems elsewhere. Organizers used Facebook s wall posts and open discussion boards continuously for communication. Most of the interventions that did occur aimed to facilitate the process rather than the content. 6. Findings and the model for self-organizing blended learning According to the feedback and self-evaluation provided by the participants and groups, we were able to recognize following key issues that relate to working in a blended learning context. As digital environments seem to be more problematic in blending approaches compared to physical ones, we focus next on our findings on using digital learning environments and social media in particular. It is a crucial part of a blended learning course to continuously facilitate the learning process of the participants in order to keep the process on track and to ensure participation. On the basis of our experiences we recommend following facilitative actions to be considered: The facilit
