Where in the World is Flexible Learning? An examination of the spaces and places of learning

 

Presentation Given At: 2015 Symposium on Scholarly Teaching & Learning in Post-Secondary Education

 

Presenters: Dr. Arthur “Gill” Green, Dr. Derek Turner, Dr. Loch Brown

 

Date Presented: November 13, 2015

 

Link: http://2015symposiumonscholarlyinquiryi.sched.org/event/31st/research-bites

 

Abstract:

This research examines where and how learners interact with Flexible Learning (FL) technologies. FL is defined as a learner-centered pedagogic approach “offering the student choices in how, what, where, when and with whom he or she participates in learning-related activities” (Collis and Moonen 2011, 15). Despite the promise, there is a paucity of research on the “where” element of FL – mostly focused on campus-based, technology-rich learning spaces rather than increasing mobility of learners and the opportunities mobility provides for teaching and learning (Collis 2010). While higher education institutions widely adopted online learning management systems since the 1990s, a concurrent revolution of increased mobility (technological devices and expanded connectivity) has caused a ground shift in the ways that teachers and learners use technology in their everyday lives. These changes provide new modalities for interacting with course materials, other learners, and experiential learning opportunities (Salmon 2011). They also question whether FL is fulfilling its promise to enhance access through expanding the geography of learning. After all, where learning occurs influences how activities engage the affective, cognitive, and psychomotor learning domains, and is an important question for the discipline of geography wherein fieldwork is emphasized (Boyle et al. 2007, Lynch et al 2008, Herrick 2010). In this research, we use learning analytics, web analytics, surveys, field observation, and semi-structured interviews to examine the places (e.g. home, campus, transport, or cafes) and spaces (e.g. distances to university and spatial clustering of students) in which FL occurs.

 

References:

Camplese, C., McDonald, S., 2010. Disrupting the classroom. Edge 5, 4, 3-19.

Du, H., Rosson, M.B., Carroll, J., Ganoe., C., 2009. “I felt like a contributing member of the class”: increasing class participation with ClassCommons. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on supporting group work, 233-242.

Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., Meyer, I., 2010. Microblogs in higher education – a chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers and Education, 55, 92-100.

Elavsky, C.M., Mislan, C., Elavsky, S., 2011. When talking less is more: exploring outcomes of Twitter usage in the large lecture hall. Learning, Media and Technology, 36, 215-233.

Hembrook, H., Gay, G., 2003. The laptop and the lecture: the effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15.

Junco, R., Heibergert, G., Loken, E., 2011. The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 119-132.

Phalen, K., 2003. Taking a minus and making it a plus. Information Technology and Communication, 7.

Schroeder, A., Minocha, S., Schneider, C., 2010. The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of using social software in higher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 159-174.

Yardi, S., 2011. The role of backchannel in collaborative learning environments. In: ICLS ’06 Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Learning Sciences, 852-858.

Leave a Reply