Although students did not use social networking in their classes, the use of ... becoming more and more prevalent and, according to Facebook newsroom (4 ...
THE USE OF WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES IN FORMAL AND INFORMAL LEARNING SETTINGS ABSTRACT It is often assumed that because the current generation of students is more technologically competent than previous generations, they would prefer to use technology for both formal and informal learning. The results of a series of empirical studies indicated that students in formal settings preferred face-to-face contact with their instructors and used Web 2.0 tools for communication and to complete specific class assignments; in their personal lives, these technologies were used for communication, music and video downloads, and online gaming. Although students did not use social networking in their classes, the use of these tools may provide educators with an alternative to course management systems. Results from a community sample indicated a preference towards using the internet for information gathering and, although respondents reported that the incorporation of social networking sites in informal education settings would be nice, it was not expected. Overall, both student and community participants utilised technology that was familiar to them. Thus, assuming technological competence in our students and implementing various technological applications in the classroom may be counterproductive if guidance and training are not provided.
1
TECHNOLOGICAL TOOLS IN EDUCATION INTRODUCTION Web 2.0 is a set of second generation web-based technologies and services that are often designed so that users can easily share information. Although the term "Web 2.0 Technology" is used in many ways, most researchers agree that this technology include blogs, podcasts, wikis, social networking sites (i.e., Facebook, MySpace) social bookmarking sites (i.e., Diigo), and file sharing sites (i.e., Dropbox). The advent of these technologies has meant that modern consumers of information are not simply information gatherers but are able to produce and create content and go on to use and share their creations (Kennedy et al., 2007). The widespread use of these technologies has led researchers to examine the feasibility of using social networking sites to convey educational information. The use of social networking is becoming more and more prevalent and, according to Facebook newsroom (4 October 2012), as of 14 September 2012, there were 1,000,000,000 Facebook users. Even more staggering is the fact that Facebook reports 1.4 billion friend connections and 219 billion uploaded photographs. In 2007, the number of Facebook users hit 50 million and the median age of new users was 26 years. The age of new users has decreased steadily and, currently, the median age of a new user is 22 years. According to the Global Information Technology Report (Bold & Davidson, 2012), Facebook users who access such sites through a mobile device are more active users. Furthermore according to this report, it is predicted that by 2015, smart phones will be more commonly used than personal computers thus, more and more people are expected to use their handheld device for information gathering and sharing as well as content creation. Given the popularity of social networking sites, the increased availability of smart devices, and the decreasing age of new users, Facebook (and other social networking tools)
2
should be more fully explored in all types of learning environments. Several researchers have reported that Facebook is a useful tool to help students connect socially (i. e., Madge, Meek, Wellens, & Hooley, 2009) and others have found that the site affords informal learning opportunities (Selwyn, 2007; Wodzicki, Schwämmlein, & Moskaliuk, 2011) and the opportunity for reflection (Mason, 2006). In spite of these possibilities, Madge et al. (2006) reported that 43% of students did not want Facebook incorporated into their university courses and many did not want their instructors to contact them using Facebook. Of the students who wanted to see Facebook used by instructors, the majority reported that the tool could be useful to convey information and for student to students connections. Technology in the Classroom During the 1980’s and 1990’s, the use of personal computers, video gaming, the internet, and cell phones became increasingly common. These advances led to a technology explosion and children born during this period were exposed to various types of technology from a very young age. Children born between 1980 and 1999 are sometimes called digital natives (Prensky, 2001) and it is often assumed that students of this generation are more technologically competent than members of previous generations. Knowledge and experience with technological tools is sometimes referred to as a new literacy (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leueds, 2008), multiliteracy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000), or a 21st century skill (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010). Given this focus on the prevalence of technological applications and the descriptors used to define modern students, it is important to examine whether students have embraced these skills. Although there is a preponderance of information suggesting that students want technology to be used in learning environments, it is critical to fully examine the efficacy of these technologies before embracing them across the board.
3
Kvavik (2005) evaluated the technology use and competency of 4374 undergraduate students from 13 universities and found that students indicated only a moderate preference for information technologies in the classroom. Although Kvavik expected that students entering university would be competent in a wide variety of technological tools, he found that first year university students had to be taught specific technology skills. Furthermore, for students to internalize literacy, specific skills had to be linked to curriculum requirements. These students preferred their instructors to use a moderate amount of technology and they perceived the biggest benefit of technology in education to be convenience. Focusing on students at a small Canadian university, Gabriel, Campbell, Weibe, MacDonald, and McAuley (2012) collected data using both questionnaires and interviews and reported that students expected to use technology while learning. In this study, students reported that they used their laptops to complete assignments, access information, and keep in contact with their friends. Furthermore, the technologies most commonly used were word processing, math and science programmes, texting, and electronic databases. In an examination of Web 2.0 technologies, Best, Buhay, and McGuire (2010) asked undergraduate university students to report how frequently they used these technologies. In this study, tools that aided communication were used most often (i.e., text messaging, Facebook). These results were confirmed by Gabriel and her colleagues (2012) who also found that the most common technologies used by students for personal reasons were communicative. In this study, students reported using email, Facebook, and instant messaging to keep in contact with their friends and family. Best et al. (2010) also found that students spent, on average, 10 hours a day using some type of technology and this high media use was replicated by Gabriel et al. (2012). Overall, it appears that although students have access to a variety of technologies, they do not make full use of the tools available to them. For example, Best et al. (2010) found that 4
only 8% of students reported that they subscribed to RSS feeds, less than 5% used social bookmarking tools, and fewer than 2% used technology to create or modify a web page. Gabriel et al. (2012) found that although students commonly used the Internet to access information and liked the fact that their course management systems were always accessible, they did not use Web 2.0 tools to complete their class assignments but rather relied on word processing and discipline specific programmes. Thus, it appears that although students report spending an increasing amount of time using technology, they tend to use communicative technologies in their personal lives and specific software to complete their course assignments. Formal and Informal Learning Environments There are many types of learning environments and researchers recognize that people gain knowledge in various ways throughout their lives. For people of all ages, learning takes place in the classroom, in the workplace, and in everyday life. On a daily basis we gather information using many sources, including the news media, television, internet sources, community organizations, and museums. Although our primary goal is to seek out solutions to problems that we face in our educational or professional lives, we also gather information simply to satisfy our curiosities (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012). Our inclination for seeking information for different purposes and using multiple sources demonstrates a propensity for lifelong learning in both formal and informal settings (Falk, Storksdieck, & Dierking, 2007). Given the interest in lifelong learning outside the traditional classroom, researchers have begun to explore learning in various settings. The concept of a Personal Learning Environment is quite new and these environments are the result of the increased availability of social media tools that allow users to easily create, organise, and share content (Martindale & Dowdy, 2010). Personal Learning Environments consist of a series of Web 2.0 tools and services that allow learners to share resources that are, in part, designed to enhance collective knowledge generation 5
and, as a result, encourage users to manage their own learning (Dabbagh & Reo, 2011). The use of these tools and services is self-directed with the responsibility for learning placed on individual users (Rubin, 2010). The evolution of these environments allows the user to combine information gathered in formal and informal learning situations. Formal learning typically takes place in a traditional or virtual classroom, is highly structured, involves completing a structured set of readings, course assignments, tests, etc., and results in formal academic credentials (i.e., diploma, degree, certification). Informal learning is driven by the needs of the learner and is usually accomplished through observation, trial and error, personal conversations, and reflection. Although some researchers conceptualise formal and informal learning along a continuum (i.e., Cross, 2007), Hall (2009) argued that learning is most effective when learners engage with both formal and informal learning activities. According to Hall, both environments provide opportunities for growth; engagement in formal education program can increase interest in various topics and, as a result, students may continue to seek information about a topic outside of the classroom. As users develop Personal Learning Environments, they are able to integrate opportunities for both types of learning. With the proliferation of technology, programmes traditionally delivered in a classroom setting are now increasingly available freely online and, thus, there is more blurring of formal and informal learning in the home (Crane & Chen, 1994). Although innovative developments, such as the iTunes U app, allow adults to explore their interests in an informal and unstructured setting, print, television, radio, and digital media are often cited by the public as their major source of scientific information (National Research Council, 2009, p. 277). The U.S. National Science Board (2012) reported that people in the United States rely equally on television and the internet for science information. When asked what source they turned to when seeking specific science information, 59% used the internet, 15% watched television, and fewer respondents got 6
information from newspapers. Although technological advancements have created accessible informal learning opportunities that are used by many adults, the creation of Web 2.0 technologies provides new opportunities for informal learning. Focus of the Current Chapter Before educators and researchers adopt specific educational tools, they should fully examine learner preferences to determine whether the integration of social networking applications into learning environments is necessary. The overall goal of this chapter is to examine how learners prefer to gather information and which tools they prefer to use in different settings. The chapter will focus on integrating results from several empirical research studies that we have conducted in this area; specifically, we are interested in (1) how students use technology in their personal and educational lives and which technologies are preferred for specific tasks; (2) how people learn in informal settings (in this case, a global geopark), and, (3) whether the tools used in formal and informal settings are similar. EMPIRICAL STUDIES At the World Conference on Education for All it was recognised that formal and informal programmes were instrumental in achieving a scientifically literate community (Haddad, 1990). Formal education can lay the foundation for learning in the early years but to continue with lifelong learning, adults must control their own learning and informal environments play a critical role. For instance, both formal and informal education contributes to science literacy. Both groups of educators, and scientists themselves, have a mandate to improve science literacy (Liu, 2009). An individual’s motivation, curiosity, and background knowledge can influence successful informal learning and these encounters can provide opportunities that motivate science learning (Hofstein & Rosenfeld, 1996). Formal and informal educators do not work in isolation but often complement each other with school groups participating in field trips at informal learning sites as 7
a method of science instruction. For example, Geopark sites are destinations for school field trips and are centres for informal learning, provide geological, historical and cultural stories, and allow scientists to contribute to informal learning by communicating their research to the general public in an understandable fashion using accessible methods. To determine overall preferences for technology in formal and informal settings, we conducted several studies with students and individuals in the community, specifically geopark visitors. The questionnaire data obtained from our various studies allows us to examine how people use technology to learn and which tools they prefer to use to get information. Because data was collected in a variety of settings, it was possible to examine differences in how people learn in a variety of settings. In our studies we have collected data from 1087 participants, ranging in age from 13 years to over 80 years. Information was collected about technologies that are preferred in both educational and personal settings. Our sample included both student (middle school, community college, university) and community (data collected from geopark field sites in Canada and England) participants. Student Technology Use We have conducted several studies with students in different educational environments to determine overall preferences for technology in the classroom. All of the student participants were enrolled in traditional, classroom-based programmes and were not enrolled (to our knowledge) in an individual online course. In total, 303 students completed questionnaires to determine which Web 2.0 technologies that they used for educational and personal purposes. Middle School students (Meanage=14.67; 32 males, 37 females) were enrolled in the public school system in New Brunswick, Canada; Community College students (Meanage=25.92; 57 males, 19 females) were enrolled in a technical diploma programme in a post-secondary college in New Brunswick, Canada; and, University students (Meanage=22.75; 25 males, 119 females) were 8
enrolled in a four year programme and, although many students had yet to declare their major area of study, the majority intended to complete a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degree. Participants completed a series of questionnaires to assess their knowledge and use of specific Web 2.0 technologies and their preferences for information technology in educational settings. Students in all three groups completed a Technology in Learning Inventory to assess their use of technology in different settings. We developed this instrument based on the 2009 Educause Center for Applied Research (ECAR) Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology (Smith, Salaway, Caruso, & Katz, 2009). Relevant questions from the Educause Center for Applied Research (ECAR) survey were selected and used in studies described in the current chapter. The resulting self-report instrument had seven sections that measured (1) learning preferences (5 questions answered on a 5-point Likert scale); (2) frequency of email use for personal and educational purposes (2 questions answered in terms of frequency of use); (3) expectations for technology use (8 questions measured on a 4-point scale); (4) use of Web 2.0 tools for educational and (5) personal purposes (in each 28 tools were listed and respondents indicated the frequency of use); (6) use of handheld devices (15 questions answered using a Yes/No format); and (7) preference for technology in the classroom (1 question answered using a Likert scale). The questionnaire was designed to be descriptive and did not yield a total score or individual section scores. Geopark Visitor Technology Use Public education is an integral component of geoparks (UNESCO, 2010) and through interpretive programmes, signage, tours, electronic media, etc., geoparks are able to tap into a person’s curiosity and engage them with a geological “story” while providing them with a fun
9
experience. In the summers of 2011 and 2012, data was collected from geopark visitors at sites in New Brunswick, Canada and in Devon, England. Comparison data was collected from students enrolled in biology and psychology classes at the university. The data presented here are part of a larger project designed to assess earth science literacy and information communication preferences of geopark visitors and residents of cities near a geopark. The data from geopark visitors allows us to make broader conclusions about (1) information gathering preferences in formal and informal settings, (2) differences between student and community samples, and (3) similarities of samples from different geographical areas. Stonehammer Geopark was established in Canada in 2010 as the only North American member of the Global Geopark Network (GGN). Centred on Saint John, New Brunswick, the park occupies 2500 square km and includes 12 public geosites. Geoeducation is not new to the area and has been active since the early nineteenth century with the local newspaper, New Brunswick Courier (Anonymous, 1823), reporting the first record of public geology lectures offered in 1823. Furthermore, the Natural History Society of New Brunswick led public field trips in the 1800s and early 1900s. University classes and conferences regularly lead field trips to geosites in this area for educational purposes. The English Riviera Geopark was established in 2007 in Devon County, England. The area has long been a year-round resort on the Torbay coast. The English Riviera is one of the GGNs smallest geoparks at 104 square km and uses 10 geosites as a focus for geotourism and public education (UNESCO, n.d.). The area has a rich geological heritage and includes sites important to the Devonian Period of geologic time (McNamara, 1999). Geoscience awareness has been part of the community since the 19th century. In 2011 and 2012, we collected data from 785 participants who completed a survey to ascertain their preferences for information communication and gathering (NCanada = 308, average 10
age 48.66 years; NEngland =169, average age=42.17 years; Nuniversity =308, average age 20.98 years). The Geopark Field Survey (GFS) was designed to assess knowledge of Stonehammer Geopark visitors (Buhay, Best, & Miller, 2011) and included questions to assess current interest in geological topics, awareness of the local geopark, earth science literacy, and current information communication preferences. The survey was adapted for use in the English Riviera by changing questions that were specific to Stonehammer. The two versions of the survey were identical in all other aspects. In total, 114 participants (14.5%) were international visitors or students, 168 (21.4%) were national, 73 (9.3%) were from the larger area surrounding the geopark, and 428 (54.5%) were local visitors or students. LEARNING AND TECHNOLOGY IN FORMAL EDUCATION Participants were to use a five-point scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree) to rate how they preferred to learn. Differences were assessed using a 2 (gender) x 3 (sample) x 6 (learning preference) mixed analysis of variance. Although there were no gender differences, there were statistically significant differences in the pedagogical methods that students felt were successful, F(5, 705)=22.55, p=.001. Students felt that the inclusion of visual materials (Mean = 4.14) was the most effective teaching technique, followed by having face-to-face contact with an instructor (Mean = 3.99). A focus on information relevant to real-world applications received an intermediate ranking (Mean = 3.82) and was higher than the use of team learning (Mean = 3.69), the inclusion of the latest technology (Mean = 3.66) and independent learning (Mean = 2.98). Figure 1 shows the learning preferences of three groups of students. The figure illustrates that student preferences differed depending upon their educational institution, F(10, 279)=3.31, p=.0001. Post secondary students (community college and university) preferred face-to-face contact, the inclusion of visual material, and real-life relevance while middle school and
11
community college students reported a preference for the latest technology. All students preferred group learning to independent learning. Insert Figure 1 here Figure 1. Preferences of students for different teaching techniques.
Participants were also asked about the specific technologies they wanted used in their classrooms. They rated tools on a four-point scale (1=don’t want it; 2= don’t expect it; 3=it would be nice; 4=expect it). A series of 2 (gender) x 3 (sample) analyses of variance were used to test the differences between male and female students in the three samples (see Table 1). Overall, both male and female university and middle school students had higher technology expectations than did community college students, F(2, 275) = 23.84, p
