Learning | It's About Learning

If you don’t have a 21st century infrastructure you won’t have 21century learning

Dwayne Harapnuik — March 13, 2014 — Leave a comment

http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-beta/five-ways-21st-and-20th-century-learning-will-differ

Five Ways that 21st and 20th Century Learning Will Differ | Inside Higher Ed via kwout

In the Higher Education blog post Five Ways that 21st and 20th Century Learning Will Differ Steve Mintz, the Executive Director of the University of Texas System’s Institute for Transformational Learning and a Professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin, points to the 5 ways teaching and learning in the early 21st century differ from its 20th century.

There is a fundamental presupposition that Mintz did not mention and is essential in realizing the predictions that he has offered. A 21st-century education requires the use of 21st-century tools and infrastructure. The reason he didn’t mention this was that he didn’t need to—21st-century tools and infrastructure are foundational to most institutions in Texas.

Having taught and spent time as an administrator in the Texas Higher Education system I need to point out that the University of Texas (UT) system adopted the Google Apps for Education in various locations as early as 2009 and fully by 2011. Abilene Christian University (ACU), the institution that I worked at, is outside the UT system and it adopted Google Apps for Education in 2007 as did many other colleges and universities across the US. It was this cloud based infrastructure that made it possible for ACU to implement its mobile learning strategy in 2008. By 2010 all ACU students and 95% of faculty and staff had and used an iPhone in the learning environment and by 2011 when the iPad came out that fall nearly 60% of the institutions students adopted the tablet as well. Mobile learning at ACU and all that comes with this initiative was built on a foundation of 21st century cloud based technology.

ACU faculty, students, staff and administrators have a 7 year head start on using 21st-century tools. UT students have 3-4 year head start on BCIT students. Eastern Canadian institutions like Lakehead University adopted Google Apps for education in 2008 which means their students, faculty and staff have a 6 year head start on BCIT. We are seeing a move in K-12 in this province to the cloud through Microsoft’s 365 platform so in the next few years we will have new students coming to BCIT who have this experience. This time frame on the head start assumes BCIT will be moving to a 21st-century cloud based infrastructure soon, but this is unlikely given the privacy paranoia that is preventing our move forward. Building our “own cloud” really doesn’t help because as good as simulations are nothing compares to working with and in the authentic environment.

The bottom line is that in the global marketplace in which we live not using 21st-century tools puts BCIT students, faculty and staff at a huge disadvantage.

In 21st century learning cloud, Google Apps, microsoft 365

Why Mobile Learning Is The Future Of Workplace Learning

Dwayne Harapnuik — March 11, 2014 — Leave a comment

Why Mobile Learning Is The Future Of Workplace Learning

Click to view the complete infographic. |
Infographic by Upside Learning

In Infographic, mLearning informal learning, Learning, mobile, workplace

Alarmist reaction to Alberta’s Discovery Learning model

Dwayne Harapnuik — March 4, 2014 — Leave a comment

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/28/does-discovery-learning-prepare-alberta-students-for-the-21st-century-or-will-it-toss-out-a-top-tier-education-system/

Does ‘discovery learning’ prepare Alberta students for the 21st century or will it toss out a top tier education system? | National Post via kwout

My first reaction after reading this National Post article is that the reporter is playing the sensationalism card. My second reaction was frustration. These types of polemics are frustrating because the average reader will not be fully aware of what discovery or inquiry based learning really are. If the reader simply relies upon the content of the article it would appear that Alberta students will be left on their own to not only figure out how to learn but what to learn.

This couldn’t be further from the truth. Constructivist models like discovery and inquiry-based learning, if well implemented, will provide a structure for openness which addresses the critics main concern that students need a structure. The best way to understand a structure for openness is to consider Apple products. On the surface they are elegantly simple and easy to use but to achieve the elegance and simplicity the structure and programming underneath are extremely completed. Similarly inquiry-based learning environments require a very well thought out structure that underlies the openness and freedom.

Furthermore inquiry-based learning by its design has built in scaffolding and additional supports that enable the learner to discover, explore and inquire in a supported fashion. So this alarmist notion that students are “left on their own” to learn is just typical reaction from a concerned but uniformed source. The key to the success of inquiry-based learning is the implementation and paradoxically how it is structured.

When I was at ACU we developed on a Gates Foundation funded research initiative called the Mobile Enhanced Inquiry Based Learning (MEIBL) project in which we used mobile technology as the tool to provide the scaffolding that is necessary for inquiry based learning in introductory undergraduate chemistry and biology classes. Videos of lab lectures, procedures, access to databases of information and much more were available to students on their mobile devices which provided a scaffold and helped them gain experience with scientific discovery process. Because of the scaffolding enabled by the mobile devices the instructor had more time to work with students in a mentorship role which enabled the students to go much deeper into their studies and explore subjects in ways they could not do in a traditional drill and grill classroom. The students “did science” rather than just “learn about science” and when combined with the additional time the instructor had to mentor the leaner their success and grades revealed that this approached worked as well and often better then traditional classes.

Bottom line — if inquiry based learning is done right it is great. However, if it isn’t then the critics are may be right. Time will tell how well it is implemented in Alberta.

In Learning discovery, inquiry-based learning

What We can Learn from MOOCs

Dwayne Harapnuik — February 5, 2014 — Leave a comment

Despite erroneously suggesting that MOOCs were invented in 2013 Anant Agarwal, the President of edX — Harvard’s and MIT’s collaborative MOOC venture and the instructor of the first edX course on circuits and electronics, points to some key aspects of the edX courses which contribute to student achievement. These include:

Active Learning – Lessons are interleaved sequences of videos and interactive exercises.
Self Pacing – Students can hit the pause button or even rewind the professor.
Instant Feedback – Students can try to apply answers. If they get it wrong, they can get instant feedback. They can try it again and try it again until they great it right, and this really becomes much more engaging.
Gamification – You can engage students much like they design with Legos…the learners are building a circuit with Lego-like ease. And this can also be graded by the computer.
Peer Learning – Students answer each others questions in the online forums and the Prof confirms the right answer. Students are learning from each other and that they are learning by teaching.

A well designed online course that provides the opportunity for active learning, self pacing, instant feedback and peer interaction can contribute toward student achievement and success. As we can see from John Hattie’s examples below of Teaching Effects several of the edX effects make the the top fo Hattie’s list: