Haggards, S. (2010) African Digital Diaries – Portraits of Ad Hoc eLearning in Africa, eLearning Africa 2010 News Portal, March 31

This is a podcast about several self-taught “digital [...]]]> The news portal for the eLearning Africa 2010 conference in Lusaka, Zambia, between May 26-28 has the following news items about presentations to be made at the conference:

Haggards, S. (2010) African Digital Diaries – Portraits of Ad Hoc eLearning in Africa, eLearning Africa 2010 News Portal, March 31

This is a podcast about several self-taught “digital pioneers” in Africa, including the Bishop of West Africa, a group of teenage “beach boys” on the island of Zanzibar, and a young woman journalist in Tunisia.

They keep diaries of their work and will present them at eLearning Africa 2010 – either directly or online – inspiring a discussion on the power of unstructured learning.

For more information on this project, go to: http://sites.google.com/site/africandigitaldiarieslusaka/

IICD (2010) ICT Helps Young People in Zambia Increase Their Employment Chances eLearning Africa 2010 News Portal, March 31

This is a project of the Youth Resource Centre in Kalingalinga, a suburb of Lusaka, Zambia.  In a food production class, young people have learned how to run a restaurant. By using a computer, they can then design and print menus for the restaurant and use the computers to find recipes of international dishes on the world wide web. In the carpentry and tailoring classes, computers are primarily used to calculate precise sizes and produce designs for products such as tables and chairs. This saves time for the carpenters and cuts out errors from drawing by hand.

Kiyama, R. (2010) Tackling eWaste in Africa with eLearning from UNEP eLearning Africa 2010 News Portal, March 31

To counterattack the surge in eWastes, officials at UNEP have developed an eLearning strategy and built internal capacity in eLearning course development and managing eLearning programmes. The UN agency has also established a number of strategic partnerships with specialised institutions across Africa. Representatives of environmental authorities in fourteen African countries met in Dakar, Senegal in 2009, during the fourth eLearning Africa conference. They agreed on their responsibility for establishing an African environmental eLearning network to share expertise, best practice and eLearning content.

Zulu, B. (2010) How good are Open Educational Resources? eLearning Africa 2010 News Portal, March 31

An interesting report of the response of high school teachers in four provinces of Zambia to OERs.

JISC (2009) Responding to Learners Pack Bristol, UK: Joint Information Systems Committee.

From the JISC site:

JISC is an independent advisory body [in the United Kingdom] that works with further and higher education by providing strategic guidance, advice and opportunities to use ICT to [...]]]> From ‘Key messages’ in the JISC Responding to Learners Pack

JISC (2009) Responding to Learners Pack Bristol, UK: Joint Information Systems Committee.

From the JISC site:

JISC is an independent advisory body [in the United Kingdom] that works with further and higher education by providing strategic guidance, advice and opportunities to use ICT to support learning, teaching, research and administration.

The Learner Experiences of e-Learning theme of the JISC e-Learning programme funded a total of ten projects from 2005 to 2009, to explore learners’ perceptions of and participation in technology- enhanced learning in a digital age.

Earlier research addressed learners’ experiences of single modules, technologies or curriculum interventions; the Learner Experiences of e-Learning theme covered the holistic nature of learners’ experiences of learning, with a focus on learners’ own words

The projects piloted a range of innovative methodologies and techniques for eliciting the learner voice.

Nearly 3,500 learners responded to surveys, and around 260 were involved in a sustained way.

The 5 guides in the pack are written for different roles within the institution and highlight the key issues relevant to these roles.

Guides for

1)Institutional managers (PDF)
2)Practitioners (PDF)
3)Course teams (PDF)
4)Learning developers and learning support staff (PDF)
5)Researchers (PDF)

These works have been issued under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike 2.0 UK: England and Wales licence (copyright HEFCE)

Comment

If you want to know learners’ expectations and experiences of e-learning, this is essential reading. It has a solid research methodology based on a large sample of British students, with research-supported pragmatic recommendations.

Thanks to Richard Elliott’s eLearning Watch for directing me to this.

From ‘Key messages’ in the JISC Responding to Learners Pack

This is a news report on a study just released by the  Texas-based Center for Community College Student Engagement. The study is based on a survey of more than 400,000 students from 663 institutions that assesses how much effort students invest [...]]]> Marklein, M. B. (2009) Social networks could help community college students USA Today, November 16

This is a news report on a study just released by the  Texas-based Center for Community College Student Engagement. The study is based on a survey of more than 400,000 students from 663 institutions that assesses how much effort students invest in their studies, whether they interact with faculty and staff, and whether they are challenged by their academics. Studies show that the more engaged students are in such activities and relationships, the more likely they are to learn, but “colleges are not taking advantage of that particular set of tools for making connections with students to the extent that they could.”

The study found that:

• 95% of students ages 18 to 24 use social-networking tools, including instant messages and texting, 64% multiple times a day. Yet just 18% do so for schoolwork, and 27% never do. Just 5% never use social networks.
• Among older students, 68% used social networking, 41% multiple times a day. But just 10% do so for school; 49% never used social networking for school.

The report stops short of suggesting that social networking is the key to engaging all students, but it urges colleges to “find the right match.”

1. Is e-learning failing in higher education?

2. Expectations and goals for e-learning

3. Has e-learning increased access to learning opportunities?

4. Does technology really enhance the quality of teaching and learning?

5. e-Learning and 21st century skills and competences

Meeting the needs [...]]]> This is the sixth blog on the topic: ‘Is e-learning failing in higher education?’. The previous five were:

1. Is e-learning failing in higher education?

2. Expectations and goals for e-learning

3. Has e-learning increased access to learning opportunities?

4. Does technology really enhance the quality of teaching and learning?

5. e-Learning and 21st century skills and competences

Meeting the needs of millennials

One of the goals sometimes claimed for e-learning is that it meets the learning styles/needs of millennial students, or put another way, millennial students will learn better through e-learning because it fits their experience and ways of behaving.

I am going to argue that this is not a strong justification for the use of e-learning – or rather, the focus on e-learning as a means to meet the needs of millennials is too narrow.

Who are the ‘Millennials’?

This is a term used for those born between the mid 1970s to early 1990s inclusive. Other terms used for people born in these years are Generation Y, the Net Generation, or digital natives. The term is used to describe learners who have grown up with technology such as computers and the Internet all through their life. They are assumed to be technology-savvy, are able to multi-task, have developed specific skills such as video games playing, and are sometimes described as having a sense of entitlement (‘it’s all about me’) – after all, they are the children of ‘boomers’ (Alsop, 2008).

More specifically, with regard to higher education, Oblinger and Oblinger (2005a) identify the following characteristics as being typical for millennials:

• digitally literate in the sense of being comfortable and familiar with digital technology
• connected to friends and the world through technology
• ‘immediacy’: rapid multi-tasking, fast response to communications
• experiential: they prefer to learn by doing rather than being told
• highly social: ‘they gravitate toward activities that promote and reinforce social interaction’
• group work: they prefer to work and play in groups or teams
• a preference for structure rather than ambiguity
• engagement and interaction: an orientation towards action and inductive reasoning rather than reflection
• a preference for visual (i.e. graphics, video) and kinesthetic learning rather than learning through text
• active engagement in issues that matter to millennials

The argument made by writers such as Prensky (2001) and Oblinger and Oblinger (2005b) is that education needs to be adapted to meet the needs of these learners. Millennials need to be actively engaged, need to be motivated and interested to learn, and above all need to be immersed in a technological environment for learning.

Does the Millennial student really exist?

Bullen et al. (2009) though challenge these findings.

‘A review of literature on the millennial learner and implications for education reveals that most of the claims are supported by reference to a relatively small number of publications…. What all of these works have in common is that they make grand claims about the difference between the millennial generation and all previous generations and they argue that this difference has huge implications for education. But most significantly, these claims are made with reference to almost no empirical data. For the most part, they rely on anecdotal observations or speculation. In the rare cases, where there is hard data, it is usually not representative.’

Bullen and his colleagues are right to draw attention to the source of such claims. Going back to the original research is always a good idea, and often on this topic the empirical data base is very weak, with small samples and often samples skewed towards high users of technology. However, it is also important to look at what exactly is being claimed. For instance, Oblinger and Oblinger (2000a) question whether it is age that relates to these characteristics but rather exposure to technology:

‘Although these trends are described in generational terms, age may be less important than exposure to technology. For example, individuals who are heavy users of IT tend to have characteristics similar to the Net Gen.’

In another paper in the same publication, Hartman, Moskal, and Dziuban (2005) report on a survey of students at the University of Central Florida. The University of Central Florida (UCF) regularly conducts formative and summative surveys of students’ online learning experiences (UCF has a high proportion of blended and fully online courses). In the 2004 survey there were 1,489 online student responses, representing a return rate of approximately 30 percent. They found for a start that there was ’substantial age diversity in the distributed learning population in metropolitan universities.’ Over half the students (55%) were in fact Generation X students, and almost as many students were Boomers (22%) as Millennials (NetGens) (23%). Over five years the proportion of millennials will have increased, but in most institutions they are likely to remain a minority of students, because of the increasing number of older students returning to post-secondary education. However, these older students will in most cases also have had an increased level of exposure to technology than their predecessors.

Another finding from the Hartman, Moskal and Dziuban paper is that Millennials indicated less engagement with online learning than their older counterparts. Although this may be counter to the argument that Millennials are more comfortable with technology and therefore need technology based teaching, it is consistent with the finding that older or more mature students do better at online and distance learning.

There are really three separate issues here:

1. Are millennial learners distinctly different from other students currently in college? Millennial students exist, of course, as they are defined by age. One thing we can say is that they will be younger than non-Millennial students – at least for a couple more years until the next generation arrives. However, Millennials are not a majority of students in many post-secondary educational institutions and there is evidence to suggest that exposure to technology is equally as important as age in determining the learner characteristics described by Oblinger and Oblinger. So I would not put a lot of emphasis on date of birth as a determining characteristic of today’s learner.

2. Are students in college today different from students in college 25 years ago? Despite the lack of rigour of the claims for ‘millennial learners’, I would be surprised, if given their exposure to technology over the last 25 years, current students are the same as students 25 years ago. Thus the characteristics described by Oblinger and Oblinger are likely to apply to many students today. However, there are also other differences that are even more important, in terms of educational strategies, such as a much greater of proportion of students today being older, studying part-time, and requiring more flexible access to learning.

3. If students are different, what should instructors do? This is a much more difficult question to answer, and I will try to do this more extensively below.

All students are important

Although the argument has some merit that students entering post-secondary education now are qualitatively different from previous generations of students – some commentators go so far as to argue that their brains are ‘wired’ differently –  one needs to be careful in interpreting this argument in education. Research has shown that skills developed in one context (e.g. solving problems in video games) do not necessarily transfer to other contexts (e.g. problem-solving in business). In particular, students’ use of the Internet for social and personal purposes does not necessarily prepare them adequately for academic applications of the Internet, such as searching for reliable sources of information (CIBER, 2008).

Also, there is a danger in stereotyping. Not all ‘millennials’ behave the same way or have a total immersion in technology. Nor are all students these days millennials. An increasing number of students are ‘pre-millennial’, being older and returning to study or entering post-secondary education later in life. Lastly, there are some inherent requirements in education – such as a disciplined approach to study, critical thinking, evidence-based argumentation, for example – that cannot or should not be abandoned because they do not fit a particular student’s preferred learning style.

Accommodating to differences in learners

Nevertheless, it is important for instructors to take into account the needs of all learners they are dealing with. Young people see technology much the same way they see air and water – part of everyday life. It is natural then that they will see technology as a ‘normal’ component of teaching and learning.

Full-time Millennial students on campus though have frequently reported that they do not expect technology to replace face-to-face contact with their teacher, and they they expect teachers to help them to know how best to use technology for learning. There is not an automatic transfer of technology skills from social and personal use to academic use, and most students are aware of this. The important issue here is that instructors need to understand how technology can be appropriately used for studying, and need to ensure that teaching makes the best use of technology possible. Some students will need more help than others in their use of technology for learning, but all students need to learn how to integrate technology successfully within their subject discipline.

The need for student engagement in learning

Lastly, Prensky and others argue that teachers need to change their strategies, because Millennials are used to being stimulated and engaged outside school, and therefore need to be engaged inside school. This may be true, but why is it special to Millennials? Should not all our students be engaged and challenged, stimulated by learning, and find the joy and excitement of discovery? Intelligent use of technology can help, certainly, but it is not sufficient on its own; it needs to be harnessed to effective teaching strategies, such as collaborative learning, problem- and project-based teaching, and enabling students to take responsibility for their own learning. This should apply to all students, not just the Millennials.

References

Alsop, R. (2008) The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the Millennial Generation is Shaking Up the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bullen, M. et al. (2009) The Net Generation in Higher Education: Rhetoric and Reality International Journal of Excellence in e-Learning Vol. 2, No. 1

CIBER (2008) Information behaviour of the researcher of the future London: British Library, UCL

Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J. (2005a) ‘Is It Age or IT: First Steps Toward Understanding the Net Generation’, in Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J. (2005) Educating the Net Generation Boulder CO: EDUCAUSE

Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J. (2005) Educating the Net Generation Bolder CO: EDUCAUSE

Pedró, F. (2009) ‘New millennial learners in higher education: evidence and policy implications’, in ‘Technology in Higher Education’, to be released later by OECD/CERI. In the meantime, the document can be downloaded from the Hextlearn site: http://www.hextlearn.eu/mod/extrapages/welcome.php

Prensky, M. (2001) ‘Digital natives, Digital Immigrants’ On the Horizon Vol. 9, No. 5 (downloaded from: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf)

Somewhat ‘old’ now, but still essential reading, this collection explores the Net Gen and the implications for institutions in areas such as teaching, service, learning space design, faculty development, and curriculum. Contributions by educators and students are included.

Thanks to Burkhard Lehmann for reminding [...]]]> Oblinger, D. and Oblinger, J. (2005) Educating the Net Generation Bolder CO: EDUCAUSE

Somewhat ‘old’ now, but still essential reading, this collection explores the Net Gen and the implications for institutions in areas such as teaching, service, learning space design, faculty development, and curriculum. Contributions by educators and students are included.

Thanks to Burkhard Lehmann for reminding me of this. He comments that the book indicates:
“1. The rhetoric that university students are Digital Natives and university staff are Digital Immigrants is not supported.
2. There is great diversity in students’ and staff experiences with technology, and their preferences for the use of technology in higher education.”

This interview with a professor from the University of South Africa describes how instant messaging is being used to encourage collaborative learning. In a long-term study she conducted, she found that isolated students have a need for informal support [...]]]> Makoe, M. (2009) MXit: How to Encourage and Facilitate Communication Among Students eLearning Africa Newsletter, May 12

This interview with a professor from the University of South Africa describes how instant messaging is being used to encourage collaborative learning. In a long-term study she conducted, she found that isolated students have a need for informal support that is often neglected in distance education. This has led her to investigate on how MXit, a popular South African instant messaging system, can help to fill the gap and drive collaborative e-learning in an attractive, age-appropriate manner.

Dr Mpine Elizabeth Makoe will speak in the session “Mobile Learning in Health and Education”, Thursday, May 28th, 2009, 14:00 – 15:30 at the eLearning Africa 2009 conference in Dakar, Senegal

Extract

‘MXit has a registered user base of over 7 million people all over the world and the great majority of them are in South Africa. It has about 11 million log-ons per day and over 210 million messages sent / received per day. The number of MXit users is greater than the total number of landlines installed in the entire country. One advantage of MXit is that it is far cheaper to send a text message via this platform than with an SMS – it costs 2 cents, compared to 70 cents for an SMS message….Most students at the University of South Africa (UNISA) study in groups and this facility will enable them to communicate with each other without meeting at a specific place.’

An article that follows on from the Macleans OnCampus article, with additional references to work by Michael Wesch (Kansas State U) and Judy Hardy (University of Edinburgh), plus comments from UBC’s own Don Krug.

At the end of the UBC article, Ted Schellenberg puts [...]]]> Schellenberg, T. (2009) Getting the Half Attention of Students UBC e-Strategy Newsletter, May

An article that follows on from the Macleans OnCampus article, with additional references to work by Michael Wesch (Kansas State U) and Judy Hardy (University of Edinburgh), plus comments from UBC’s own Don Krug.

At the end of the UBC article, Ted Schellenberg puts the following question:

‘….even though it can be rather distracting — instructors need to embrace the changes surrounding us, in order to bring out the best in our students. Do you agree?’

Here is my response:

There are several issues here. First, does the instructor want the students to use their computers during class? If there is absolutely no need for them to use their laptops in class, then ask them to keep them closed. It’s just a tool, after all, and if it’s not needed, put it away.

However, a much more important question is: why is not the instructor making use of the fact that students have the technology? If students have relevant, related activities to do, such as searching for resources, online articles, or connections with other scholars or students, then it would be perfectly legitimate for them to be using their laptops in class.

An even more important question then arises: why do the students have to be physically present in the lecture room to do this? What is the instructor providing that uniquely requires them to be present in the room? Giving information? No, that can be provided over the net. Discussion – maybe, but that can also be done online. Seeing a professional approach an academic issue? Yes, but a lecture is not the only way to do this.

A lecture should not be the default model anymore for higher education. It is one, often valuable tool in an instructor’s toolbox, but like all tools, it should be carefully used for the tasks it does best. The same applies to laptops. If they are not required for learning purposes, turn them off.

A short discussion about the limitations of ‘bottom-up’ content produced through Web 2.0. This is a ‘trailer’ for his presentation at Online Educa Berlin in December 2008.

This paper addresses some aspects of the digital divide [...]]]> Samarawickrema, G., Benson, R. and Brack, C. (2008) ‘Teaching with wikis: addressing the digital divide’ in Whitton, N., and McPherson, M. (Eds) Rethinking the digital divide Research Proceedings of the 15th Association for Learning Technology Conference (ALT-C 2008). Held 9–11 September 2008, University of Leeds, England, UK.

This paper addresses some aspects of the digital divide which have the potential to impact on the learning and assessment opportunities available to students. These are the divisions affecting teachers and learners in the university system, particularly when the latter are ‘net generation’ learners whose uptake of technology is much more rapid than those who teach them. A pilot online workshop was used to prepare a small group
of teaching staff at two Australian universities on the use of wikis for teaching and assessment. This paper reports on this professional development effort, reflecting on the successes and limitations of the work, and on the lessons learned in relation to bridging the above aspects of the digital divide.