Learning from Digital Natives

Review on
Learning from Digital Natives: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning
Source: Trinder, K.R. et al (2008) Learning from Digital Natives: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning. The Higher Education Academy: Glasgow.

In my search for better understanding on new technology as knowledge sharing enabler, I was introduced to this literature by Trinder, et al (2008). It is the beginning to my further search on methods in using new technology for teaching and learning, and in my research interest – knowledge sharing.

O’Reilly (2004) has introduced the concept of Web 2.0 as a new generation of web-based tools for knowledge sharing. Yet, instead of an enabler, it is more considered as a value-added tool, as mentioned by Coates (2005). Whatever the terms, this new ‘phenomena’ is due to ‘decentralisation’ of certain aspects (i.e. knowledge creation, technology ownership, publication, control, etc.), which Surowiecki (2004) considered as “architecture of participation that harnesses the wisdom of crowds”.

I don’t quite agree with the statement, “students are developing new forms of evaluation skills and strategies (searching, restructuring, validating) which enable them to critique and make decisions about a variety of sources and content”. I believe that the students are yet to learn to understand, digest, assert and evaluate the ‘information overloaded’ contents they get from the Internet. Until today, I’m still worried for my students when they show off their ‘copy-and-paste’ skills and yet claim that they ‘paraphrase’ everything they get/search from the Internet. In fact, it is so clear to me that the whole ‘chunk’ of content is not something they understand and paraphrase, and it shows when they could not explain well what they present to me in their report. Thus, the statement is debatable, at least to me.

The use of these new tools is “changing the way they gather, use and create knowledge” (Conole et al, 2006), but it’s not to a better way. It still depends on the individuals, on how much experience (or guide) they get in learning the way to gather, use and create knowledge, before they can be ‘trusted’ in understanding the right thing. This happens very much across languages and cultures.

In my opinion, students believe too much on technology. That is why they use online tools “regardless of the course structures or teacher preferences” (Kurhila, 2006). In my most recent experience, I instructed my students to use the textbook (just to ensure that they read the chapters properly and that everybody would have the same ground to discuss), but instead they went to great distance to search for the online version of the book and get answers from there! How can I ensure that they learn something when they could spend the vital hours given to them by getting the answer directly from the publisher? They prefer to use their mind to search and copy-paste using online tools instead of study hard to understand the subject.

In referring to the statement, “Outside formal educational environments individuals act as active participants navigating their way independently through complex multimodal digital environments”, I think the right question to ask is “Why are they active ‘outside’?” Is it trust (that they have from online tools)? Is it being introvert and anonymous that makes them comfortable to be active? Or is it because of having virtual identities (that they can use to hide their true self, in fear of being accused for saying something wrong)?

In answering these questions, Collis & Moonen (forthcoming) summarises four effective ways that the technology provides:
1. To be heard
2. To connect
3. To find and share
4. To build identity

In fact, the real issues in hand would be on the teachers’ side – our skills in teaching using new pedagogies supported by technology. The old way of teaching (as how we were taught) is no longer effective or enough for the learners’ generation. So, how to use the technology for education? The key question is: “What is the actual value of these technologies (blogs, wikis, podcasts, etc.) and the processes they afford for formal learning and should institutions be investing in them?”

I see a similarity between the computer-mediated communication (CMC) systems and e-Advantage system that we have on UCSI virtual learning environment (VLE). The only difference would be that our e-Advantage is not well-accepted, and this has brought to a huge curiosity to the first-year students who join our campus every semester.

I always believe that we can learn better by teaching others. It helps in empowering our memory on certain subjects because we repeat the topics to others during the explanation. My opinion is supported by Sefton-Green (2004), who stated that “young people are taking on roles of teacher and learner in peer-based online groups”.

This follows by the statement that I agree very much by Eraut (2000) and Sternberg et al (2000): “A great deal of learning is non-formal, in that it results during the course of daily life events and activities related to work, family and leisure”. We, humans, learn better when we could relate the topics we learn with the things we observe around us in our daily lives. For example, during my postgraduate studies, I could relate the subject of Organisational Behaviour with the discrete group of software development team we had in my then-current firm, where the behaviours of different individuals are due to many ‘unseen’ reasons. I could even understand my family members better when I gain the knowledge in such subjects.

In understanding the differences between formal and informal learning, I summarise the details in a comparison table as follows [I can't manage to draw a table in this blog, so I have to list the details down according to same sequence for each concept]:
Formal learning
Provided by an educational/training institution
Lead to certification/award
Structured
Involving presence of a designated teaching/trainer
Intentional

Informal learning
Not provided by a formal educational/training institution
Typically does not lead to certification
May be structured or non-structured
Results from daily, social life activities related to education, work, socialising with others or pursuit of leisure activities and hobbies
May be intentional or non-intentional (incidental)

Another good question that is essential is “What educational processes are fostered by social and personal technologies?” A set of research results is derived from answering this question:

• development and enhancement of users’ social capital and psychological well-being
• knowledge construction processes
• emergence of new types of literacy practices of “participation” (dichotomy of consumption and production) and “remix” (the notion of copying-and-pasting inherent to this dichotomy)
• development of metacognitive skills, including increased motivation
• knowledge transfer between various contexts

Even though there are many researches done to understand the learning process underpinned by social software, there is little focus on educational aspect; mainly are focused on sociological and information sciences perspective. Thus, we have to start a research on the educational area, with relation to pedagogical and other aspects.

The key commonly used e-tools could be divided into 3 main categories as follows:

1. Hardware

• Mobile phones (e.g. vocabulary texting for learning of language, personal broadcasting, delivery of learning content and discussion activities)
• Personal media players (e.g. flash memory for storage, PC connectivity via USB port or Bluetooth for downloading, podcasting)
• Computers, PDAs, laptops and tablet PCs (e.g. GPS-enabled PDAs, built-in GPRS, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi for connection, gather data, photos, information)
• Game consoles (e.g. complete multimedia functionality with e-book reader, variety of options for formal learning or informal ‘play’)
• - Other hardware (e.g. interactive whiteboards, voting systems)

2. Software

• Multiplayer gaming environment (e.g. for virtual team, collaboration, role-playing activities of person-object, object-object and person-person)
• Blogs (e.g. share reviews and work/assignment, regular writing practice –what I aim for most students)
• Wikis (e.g. online encyclopaedia, build trust and respect – what I want my students to learn, due to their various backgrounds)
• Social bookmarking (e.g. sharing links and information in peer-based learning)

3. Network access and connectivity
Three aspects under network and connectivity:
Ability to access

• I’ve been pointing out on this since day one: IT infrastructure, the backbone, the connection services – should be reliable, stable, and supporting our effort in e-learning

Quality of access

• A good point made on this statement “Where students have access, and of what type, should be given consideration when planning the use of e-tools to support learning”. Just look at us going through the online course without a good, stable, quality of access; out of approximately 30 members, only 2 could go online for the web-conference, and even that two are without a good and stable quality of network and built-in device

Ownership and control

• From public to private, complex and interlinked, use the e-tools in a public or institutionally controlled environment

There are a few case studies that brought to my attention:
1. Mudlarking in Deptford (Sutch & Sprake, 2005)

• It is an interesting project, suitable for Malaysia junior high-school Geography and History projects
• It help the students understand their close environment and teach them to appreciate their environment
• The ability (to record their own experiences) motivated the students, got them excited and gave them ideas to challenge their creativity
• In return, the students not only learn about the subject and surrounding, but also the technology – it’s like killing 2 birds with one stone when they learn to appreciate the tools as well as the subjects
• But how to measure the improvement of learning on the students part? Report writing? Or do we need 2 sets of learning methods (one group using e-tools, and another group using the traditional methods) and measure the differences or improvements from before and after they accomplish their mission?

2. Context awareness to enhance visitor engagement in gallery space (Proctor & Burton, 2003, reported in Lonsdale & Beale, 2005)

• Obviously it’s a one-way communication between human and machine
• It doesn’t reflect any learning taking place due to limited responses between the two subjects – human and machine
• The only ‘communication’ allowed between the two subjects is the Q&As that may not be 100 percent used by the human (most people tend to ignore the feature)

3. Second Life: Role play (Antonacci & Modaress, 2005)

• Person-person activity
• The best is still real-life experience learning, unless learners are dispersed geographically

4. Second Life: Tectonic flow (Antonacci & Modaress, 2005)

• Object-object activity
• Scripting, as per my understanding, is by using formulae and algorithms in producing the simulation
• This reminds me of my first 2 years in CAGD degree course, where I had to compile mathematical formulae in algorithm using C program, in producing an animated 3-D graph; it helped in my understanding and appreciation of mathematics
• Something that real-life cannot provide due to the subjects characteristics
• Maybe there’s no communication or feedback between teacher and learner, since the learner is engaged in a simulated experimental activity
• On the other hand, the tutor’s simulation can be a sample for students’ assignment; when the learners see the final product, they would have an idea on what is expected from them

5. An Essay Evolves: Use of Blog and Wiki to tack students’ progress in essay writing (Reynolds, 2007)

• I like this case study for the fact that it managed to translate tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge – something that is found vital yet almost impossible in knowledge management concept
• I can use this for to track my students’ thesis writing, perhaps

Overall, there are 2 limitations that are not covered, due to the focus that is more on student satisfaction:
1. How the use of technologies impact learning outcomes
2. How barriers can be identified, analysed and addressed

References:

Antonacci, D. & Modaress, N. (2005). Second Life: The educational possibilities of a Massively Multiplayer Virtual World (MMVW). Paper presented at the EDUCAUSE Southwest Regional Conference, Austin, Texas. Retrieved on 10 January 2007, from www2.kumc.edu/tlt/SLEDUCAUSESW2005/SLPresentationOutline.htm

Coates, T. (2005, January 5). An addendum to a definition of Social Software. Plastigbag.org [blog], Retrieved 13 July 2007, from www.plasticbag.org/archives/2005/01/an_addendum_to_a_definition_of_social_software

Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (forthcoming). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality perspectives. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (special issue on supporting sustainable e-Learning).

Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2006). LXP: Student experience of technologies. Final report. JISC, UK. Retrieved on 29 August 2007, from www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning_pedagogy/elp_learneroutcomes.aspx

Eraut, M. (2005). Informal learning in the workplace, Retrieved 10 November 2006, from : www.tlrp.org/dspace/retrieve/226/Informal+Learning+in+the+workplace1.doc

Kurhila, J. (2006). “Unauthorized” use of social software to support formal higher education. In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2006 (pp.2602-2607). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved August 30 2007, from:
www.editlib.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Reader.ViewAbstract&paper_id=24098

Lonsdale, P. & Beale, R. (2005). Using context awareness to enhance visitor engagement in a gallery space. In Editor Proceedings of HCI 2005 Conference, Edinburgh, UK, pp. Retrieved 01 May 2007, from www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~rxb/Online%20papers/HCI2005-crc.pdf

O’Reilly, T. (2004). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software Retrieved on 27 August 2007 from www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Reynolds, L. (2007). An Essay Evolves Retrieved on March 5 2007, from http://evolvingessay.pbwiki.com/

Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Literature Review in Informal Learning with Technology outside School [online], NESTA Futurelab report No. 7. Retrieved 10 November 2006, from: www.futurelab.org.uk/research/reviews/07_01.htm

Sternberg, R. J., Forsyth, G. B., Hedlund, J., Horvath, J. A., Wagner, R.K, Williams, W. M. (2000). Practical Intelligence in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few. Abacus: London, UK.

Sutch, D. & Sprake, J. (2005). Mudlarking in Deptford. Project report. Retrieved on August 10, 2007, from www.futurelab.org.uk/showcase/mudlarking

Forever in learning mode,
- Sha @ Teaching and Learning
05 Oct 2008