Self-Directed Learning in Trial FutureLearn courses

Inge Ignatia de Waard

What to expect?

• Background• Literature foci• Research environment• Target population• Research questions• Methodology• Findings• Towards main study• Two main challenges

Prelude to PhD: pilot study

Internal FutureLearn course August 2013 – invitation only.

Literature foci

• Self-directed learning: andragogy concept of Knowles (1975), enhanced by Merriam (2002)

• Multiple learner concepts: mobile learning: Vavoula (2005); Song & Hill (2007); Kop & Fournier (2011)

• Technology and mobility: Sharples, Taylor & Vavoula (2007); Sharples (2013); de Waard (2013)

• Individual collaborative learning: Kop & Fournier (2011); Kop & Bouchard (2011); Milligan, Margaryan & LittleJohn (2013)

SDL among MOOC types

SDL rather in xMOOC or cMOOC or … ?• xMOOC versus cMOOC: Siemens (2005); Fournier, Kop &

Durand (2014); Ross, Sinclair, Knox, Bayne, and Macleod (2014)

Drop out or self-directed learning choice? Clow (2013)Learner success in MOOC = diverse: Bentley et al. (2014)

cMOOC

xMOOC

Additional elements of SDL

Unclear for MOOC, but elements from mLearning, online learning and some MOOC literature:• Online learning research related (e.g. Garrison, 1997 & 2003)• Design influences SDL (Loyens, Magda, Rikers, 2008)• Seen in relation to Lifelong learning (Arrigo et al., 2012)

Mapping SDL MOOC territoryOverall learning TELearning (mobile, online) MOOC learning

Prior knowledge (Mobile) Seamless Learning Group size

Collaborative / individual learning

Learning with new tools: digital skills

Global learners: possible non-native languages, different cultural backgrounds,

Formal and informal Contextualized learning Content is very modular, certification very diverse

Different degrees of certification

Shorter courses MOOC casualness: on top of other learning, as spare time action, superficial curiosity. Leisure learning.

Course/Learning expectations Just-in-time learning: disaster relief, performance support

Less tutor support (in general)

Unforeseen circumstances challenging participation

Tech savy or willing. Organised outside class/curriculum (mostly)

Personal traits (including motivation)

Mixed online and face-to-face interactions

Personal interactions within MOOC are publically available

Learning is not confined to the course group

Additional tech learning options: augmented learning, gamification

Learning analytics used as algorithms due to group size data available

Pilot: trial FutureLearn courses

2 closed beta courses in FutureLearn rolled out from 27 August 2013 and lasted for 2 weeks. These closed beta courses consisted of two courses (The secret Power of Brands and New Ecology), each of them providing two weeks of content and interactions to the participants.

Research environmentFutureLearn in development

Roll out courses• Running alpha trial courses from 29 July 2013, quickly adapting for optimal

user experience• Running beta closed courses from 27 August 2013, two weeks• Rolling out first public beta courses from 15 September 2013, full courses 8 –

10 week coursesDesign• Based on mobile learning principles: simple design, content in bitesize chunks. • Current: expert content delivery, share and peer-discussion.Pipeline• Social learning: conversations• Increased collaborative learning, learner based content creation. • More learner-centered• Sharing learner expertise

Target population

Informal adult learners engaged in two beta-courses of FutureLearn• The target population: learners interested in

FutureLearn (website registration, answering social media & news article calls).

• Online pre-course survey for consent

Purposeful sample

• The final sample: 59 FutureLearn course participants. They were selected from the total cohort based on: – A diverse mobile device background (ranging from people without mobiles

to those having several)– A mix of prior social media expertise (varying from none to over 5 years of

experience)– A diverse view on the importance of collaborative learning (varying from

not at all important to very important)– A diverse experience in MOOC or online learning in general (ranging from

no experience to multiple experiences)

Research questions• What are the learning experiences of adult participants engaging in

individual and collaborative self-directed learning using multiple devices in a FutureLearn course?

4 sub-questions:1. What are the elements of daily life affecting the learning

experience? 2. What are the technical aspects influencing learning experiences for

learners?3. How do the MOOC participants perceive the effect of individual or

collaborative learning on their SDL?4. Which actions (if any) did the learners undertake to adapt their

learning?

Open science of this pilot

• Shared research instruments can be read here (Academia: online survey questions, learning log templates, interview questions)

• The full mobile impact on MOOC thesis can be accessed here). • A draft report with literature review and methodology on pilot study with

research instruments, can be found here (with some brief pointers on writing a probation report).

Why a phenomenological approach to plan the pilot study?

Phenomenological research is a strategy of inquiry in which the researcher identifies the essence of human experiences about a phenomenon as described by participants. The procedure involves studying a small number of subjects through extensive and prolonged engagement do develop patterns and relationships of meaning (Moustakas, 1994).

Method: 3 stages for collecting data

The pilot stage will consist of 3 stages to grasp the expectations, experiences and reflections of the FutureLearn participants. • Phase 1 - expectations: using an online survey which will be delivered to

all pilot study participants two weeks before the FuturLearn course. • Phase 2 – keeping learning diary logs: two learning diary logs: a weekly

and a daily learning log, used during the course. • Phase 3 – reflections: structured focus group interviews planned once

the course has finished.

Expectations Experiences Reflections

Phase 1: pre-course online survey

• Tool used: SurveyMonkey (mobile)• Data collected: prior to course• Topics covered:

– MOOC experience– mLearning experience– Social media experience– FutureLearn expectations

Phase 2: Learning Logs

Built upon Vavoula’s (2005) learning diary templates. The templates altered for research (adding MOOC elements: social media, collaborative learning) • Weekly learning log: reflects type of FutureLearn

interactions the participant engaged in • Daily learning log: reflects actual learning for each day the

participant engages in FutureLearn.

Phase 3: structured 1-on-1 interviews

Looking at the participants reflections on the course, their devices used, their individual and collaborative learning experiences, their overall evaluation of the course and the strategies they adopted related to SDL.

Grounded theory to analyse the data

An exploratory methodology => combining complementary approaches: a phenomenological approach + grounded theory. • A grounded theory (GT) approach was chosen to analyse the

data (Charmaz, 2006). Complimentary characteristics of both methodologies (Creswell, 2006).

• both phenomenology and GT fit research looking for meaning as perceived by the research subjects.

• Phenomenology fits research investigating the meaning individuals give to a phenomenon (e.g. learning experiences), GT permits data like learning experiences to be analysed.

Some First Findings

Which learner activities did you engage in? (n=47)Viewing multimedia: 100 %Reading text based content: 91 %Reading course discussions: 87 %Clicking ‘Mark as done’ on articles: 91 %Taking a Quiz: 83 %Responding to questions/discussions: 68 %Searching for additional information on the internet: 51 %Viewing activity feed for the course: 30 %Following other users: 23 %Adding notes to video: 21 %Bookmarking content for later retrieval after the course has ended: 4 %

Did you work on your own or collaboratively? (n=48)Mostly on my own: 67 %A mix of both: 29 %More of a collaborative learner: 2 %Not applicable: 2 %

Problems or challenges encountered:Time related: 40 %Spare time demands: 40 %Internet connection: 35 %Family demands: 30 %Task-specific: 15 %Accessing content: 10 %Using course tools: 10%Understanding jargon: 5 %Emotional: 5 %

Some Learning Log feedback

• Hardware challenges• No support from teachers/tutors• Internet connection challenges• Course tool problems• Coping with stringed (one long list) of discussion threads as

learner activity• Non-mobile user learning logs returned (reason?)• Environment in development: not optimized for

collaborative learning, mobile communication… so probing without strong learner interaction option basis

• Asking people to find technical solutions

Key findings• Passive active participation: a result of self-esteem, learning

preference, assimilating the new platform• Daily life (personal professional) affects MOOC learning to a great

extend, but its use can be positive or negative depending on the interpretation given by the learner (e.g. illness)

• Formal and informal contacts (expert and laymen): we use our existing network (relevant or not) with the new network (chosen based on perceived expertise or mutual interest (Rienties, 2013)

• Prior MOOC experiences color active participation (expectations MOOC reality)

• Most of all: learners proceed by reaching for some kind of personally driven balance: time, effort, interest, motivation… There seems to be a personally defined zone where new (MOOC learning happens) => increases feeling of success

SDL: mapping factors and zones

Comfort Learning

zone

Technology:

(AS)TAMAODMLearner

Generated Contexts

Digital skills Pedagogy:

transfo

rmative to

socia

l-

constructive

ZPD

Personal traits: motivation, socio-political,

identity, Big Five

Collaborative

versus individual

learningPrior

knowledgeExperienceEducation SDL skills

Lear

ning flow:

emotional

well-b

eing

Learning management capacity

Learning context

Personal context and

teaching context (language,

culture, openness)

Possible SDL Learning zone

No Learning zone /wide gap

Taken forward to main study

• Focus on self-directed learning (andragogy) or on self-determined learning (heutagogy)?

• Only focus on experienced online learners• Use content diversity of MOOCs• Explore all emerging elements to filter out major MOOC

elements

Two current challenges

Untangling concepts: • Heutagogy: self-determined learning (beyond

SDL) versus adult learning: self-directed learning (lifelong learning) versus self-regulated learning (vocational learning)

• But there is more: autonomous learning, individual learning, collaborative learning

Creating a learning crossover framework including learning dichotomies that are relevant to MOOCs

References• Arrigo, M., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., & Kismihok, G. (2012). Meta-analyses from a collaborative project in

mobile lifelong learning. British Educational Research Journal, (ahead-of-print), 1-26.• Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33.• Garrison, D. R. (2003). Self-directed learning and distance education. In M. G. Moore & W. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of

Distance Education (pp. 161-168). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.• Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning. New York: association Press.• Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. ‐ New Directions for adult and

continuing education, 2001(89), 3-14.• Kop, R., & Fournier, H. (2011). New dimensions to self-directed learning in an open networked learning

environment. International journal of Self-Directed Learning, 7(2). • Loyens, S. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with

self-regulated learning.Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411-427.• Milrad, M., Wong, L. H., Sharples, M., Hwang, G. J., Looi, C. K., & Ogata, H. (2013). Seamless Learning: An International

Perspective on Next Generation Technology Enhanced Learning. In Z. L. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds). Handbook of Mobile Learning. Routledge.

• Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.• Song, L., & Hill, J. R. (2007). A conceptual model for understanding self-directed learning in online environments. Journal of

Interactive Online Learning,6(1), 27-42. • Vavoula, G.; O'Malley, C. & Taylor, J. (2005). A study of mobile learning as part of everyday learning. In: Attewell,

Jill and Savill-Smith, Carol (Eds). Mobile Learning Anytime Everywhere: a Book of Papers from MLEARN 2004. (pp. 211–212). London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.

• Wong, L. H., & Looi, C. K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364-2381.

• de Waard, Keskin, Koutropoulos (upcoming paper) Exploring future seamless learning research strands for MOOC.

27

Contact me: questions, networking…

E-mail: ingedewaard (at) gmail.com

Blog: ignatiawebs.blogspot.com

Twitter: http://twitter.com/Ignatia

Publications: http://www.ingedewaard.net/pubconsulpres.htm Presentations: http://www.slideshare.net/ignatia

linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ingedewaard

And feel free to talk to me right here, right now!