holistic Goodyear & Ellis

Peter Goodyear and R.A.Ellis (2008)

University students’ approaches to learning: rethinking the place of technology

Distance Education, 29, 2, 141-152

Uses the term holistic – but only in the Abstract – The article has implications for thinking about the design and management of learning environments in more holistic or ecological ways.

Refers to digital natives in the sense that  an interpretation of Prensky’s articles means that some expect them to arrive in HE with a set of established technological competencies that they will readily apply.

Students want to know the value of a technology JISC (2007)

P141

‘blended learning makes little or no sense to students.  It refers to a learning context ( arrangements for learning) rather than learning itself’

p142

research approach ‘an interest in comparison and replacement rather than by analysis and integration’  the drive to compare is ‘intellectual simplification’

what is foregrounded?

Some research may ‘ignore the work that students and others have to do to make the intervention what it is’ KRO e.g. group work

P143 ‘judgements are made about the success of education innovations without any serious attempt to unravel the factors shaping the outcome’

Draws a distinction between affected by rather than determined by – an interesting idea in the context of SEM modelling

P144

‘what to measure is open to judgement and contestation’

despite research approaches such as the open ended survey questions, ethnography, the possibility for students to tell us sufficient about their experience remains limited 

‘many management choices in educational evaluation are constrained by logistics, engrained practices, and lack of technical sophistication’

p145 quoting Selwyn 2007 ‘students need to be able to perceive gains from engaging with technology , KRO and group work

p147

‘students make a situated interpretation of the broader requirements of the study situation’ and this has implications for the outcome of their learning’.  Students interpretation of the task and the activities required to achieve the task are crucial

p149

‘their activity is a compromise between what they value for themselves and what they perceive to be the demands of the HE system in which they are working’

p149

‘taking a seriously student-centred approach means acknowledging the complexity of the work that gets done’

participant level analysis

Wise, A., Perera, N., Hsiao,Y-T., Speer, J., Marbouti, F. (2011)

Microanalytic case studies of individual participation patterns in an asynchronous online discussion in an undergraduate blended course

Internet and Higher Education

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.007

Looks at temporility and individuality cf aggregated data

p1 ( of online version)

‘Despite the importance placed on asynchronicity only limited research has investigated online discussions from a temporal perspective (Dringus & Ellis, 2010)’

‘Research has not yet probed in detail the individual experience of participation in asynchronous discussions over time’

p2(of online version)

‘the majority of research on how students interact with discussions aggregates data over students and time’ ‘there is no reason to presume that students all interact as the “average” one does.’

‘Case studies are useful in generating understanding of complex phenomena that have not yet been studied extensively (Yin,2003).

The study

Makes use of log file data , unpacks the temporal pattern for each students and links it to the forum content’

‘Whilst the study takes a data driven approach to understand student behaviours , to ground the work conceptually the empirical patterns found are considered in relation to a theoretical taxonomy for discussion participation proposed by Knowlton(2005).’

Taxonomy for participating in online discussions -5 kinds of student participation (Knowlton, 2005)

1. passive
2. developmental – social conversations and locus for community building
3. generative- space to develop one ideas individually and report them to the instructor.
4. Dialogic – forum for interacting with others and their ideas to build and clarify understandings
5. Metacognitive forum for interacting with others and their ideas to build and clarify understandings and an opportunity to reflect on the process of knowledge development. n.b page 4 ‘ the characteristics of metacognitive participation manifest internally; one external indicator might be additional time spent reviewing one’s own and others’ posts.

P3 ( of online version)

RQs

1. What are different patterns of behaviour that individual student exhibit as they participate in an asynchronous online discussion?
2. How do these patterns relate to the theoretical levels of participation in Knowlton’s taxonomy?

Method

Blended, with students required to participate in three asynchronous discussions worth 9% of grade. There was an Introductions week in which students were given a chance to get to know each other and the discussion tool. In each discussion , students were asked to work with their group to collectively solve an organisational behaviour challenge. To support participation students were provided with some seed questions.

Data extraction and processing log of activities – view, post, make post, edit one’s own post with a time date stamp

Based on this data 4 students were selected as representing extremes ( e.g. many frequent visits, few but extended sessions. Etc)

Analysis -Stages of microanalytic case study construction

1. Overview of activity

‘Overall sense of each student’s behaviour by looking at their aggregate behaviour in the Motivation discussion. Pie charts were created for each student (edits, reads, posts, reviews, scans) to examine their relative proportion. In addition, a table was created to outline each student’s activity broken out by session. From this data, an initial portrait was created; this description was treated as a tentative characterisation about the learner’s behaviours, one that would be tested and refined as the data was examined in more depth.’

2. Temporal microanalysis of log-file data

The log file was processed temporally; and thus the combination of this processed log-file data and the dynamic discussion maps supported a meaningful reconstruction of students’ behaviours in the forum. In addition, the contents of the students’ posts were used to help contextualize their actions in the discussion. Their resulting narrative deppened the characterization of each students’ partiaiption

3. Comparison with participation taxonomy

Results & Discussion

P7 ( of online version)

• ‘ The three students ….. exhibit distinct, complex, and seemingly purposeful patterns of behaviour. In particular, the temporal microanalysis provided insight into individual students’ experiences in the discussions, deepening and often dramatically altering the interpretation suggested by the aggregate data’

• The way students interact with the discussion is ‘more varied and nuanced than previously known’ eg selection strategy of which posts to read.

• ‘The students also differed in how they expressed their voice in the discussions. Eg used language that referred to thecontributions of others cf simply acknowledging’.

• ‘The participation patterns ……. Align well with three of the levels of Knowlton’s (2005) taxonomy.

Recommendations

P8 (of the online version)

• ‘instructors should help students to understand the purpose of online discussion’ …
• students do better when given clear guidelines ( Hew, Cheung & Ng, 2008). Reflective journal on whether/how/what they have learned from peers. Dashboard to indicate students own performance against others, class averages ( KRO need to be real others)