Chapter 5

Development and Practices/Teaching for ONLE

by Tina Foster, Amanda Glantz, Ryan Norton, Isha Rupal, Kathy Watts

Editor: Amber Holt-Geary

Overview

In three of the previous chapters, heavy emphasis has been placed on the definition, setup, instructional strategies, and designs of both the Personal Learning Environment (PLE) and the Open Network Learning Environment (ONLE). In this chapter, the discussion will continue to further develop that understanding by focussing on the more practical application of such definitions and as a study of how a teacher or an instructor can develop an effective ONLE.

As a part of the practical implementation for teachers, there will be discussion in this chapter regarding the development of best practices in teaching with PLEs and ONLEs. Special emphasis will be placed on using the teacher as a guide in these constructivist environments. Also, as a part of that aforementioned implementation, teachers will undoubtedly find the need to leverage third-party tools while employing these digital environments. These tools can provide both teacher and student with enhanced features in their learning.

An additional point of consideration in this chapter is the use of wearable technology and its implications in the educational realm. There are four major categories of wearables that will be addressed. To close out this chapter, there will be clarifying explanations between formal, informal, and non-formal learning.

Chapter Objectives:

• Learners will be able to describe effective strategies for the implementation of the ONLE and PLE.
• Learners will be able to explain what third party tools are and be able to identify them.
• Learners will be able to name four types of wearable technology and discuss potential applications of each in a learning environment.
• Learners will differentiate between formal, informal, and non-formal learning.

Teaching with PLEs and ONLEs

Designing instruction for and teaching with PLEs and ONLEs has been described as:

• “A learner-driven personalization of learning process” (Rahimi et al 2015)
• Establishing “a community playground” (Tu, 2014)
• Learning within a “human network” (Tu, 2014)
• Developing “personal knowledge management skills” (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012)

Translating ONLE and PLE instructional strategies into teaching practice begins with specific learning goals and objectives. As with traditional formats or other online learning practices, clear goals for instruction and thoughtful design are important for effective instruction. But similarities begin to diverge at that point. Traditional online instruction often requires the instructor to define learning goals and objectives. But ONLEs and PLEs are more learner-centered (Tu, 2014). Anderson and Dron (2011) remark that rather than defining specific learning content or even exact knowledge acquisition goals, teachers in a connectivist learning environment instead create a “learning path” for students. Where the path ends and how the student gets there are defined by the student in conjunction with the teacher, other learners, and other members of the learning network.

Rahimi, van den Berg, and Veen (2015a) developed a learning model for developing better self-regulated learning in students by using PLEs. They point out that learners must develop or “achieve” control over their learning environment (p. 785). As a result, although the role of the teacher in a connectivist or ONLE learning environment may seem minimal, the teacher is crucial to guiding students along a learning path that is appropriate, achievable, and not overwhelming. Rahimi et al.’s (2015a) design creates a four-part process:

1. Forethought (providing choices)
2. Performing (scaffolding)
3. Reflecting (assessing)
4. Feeding back (applying)

In each of these parts, the teacher acts as a guide, a facilitator, a fellow learner, and as Vygotsky’s “more knowledgeable other” to allow the student to move into the learning independence and the self-regulation necessary in a PLE/ONLE environment. Within the PLEs, teachers guide students to Web 2.0 tools that are available in the respective ONLE. The table below summarizes Rahimi et al.’s (2015a) model by describing each part of the process and listing what role the teacher plays in each part.

This model illustrates the importance of a teacher’s presence both in developing instruction in an ONLE and throughout the learning process. As a model for designing teaching within an ONLE, the four-part process provides a framework for designing instruction. Within each part, teachers select ONLE/PLE instructional strategies and corresponding web 2.0 tools. The following sections of this chapter describe some of those tools.

Resources for Teaching with PLEs and ONLEs:

Classroom activities and teacher role:

Pedagogical Practices, Personal Learning Environments and the Future of eLearning

Turn your classroom into a personalized learning environment

Online social networks as formal learning environments: Learner experiences and activities

Role of Teacher in Personal Learning Environments

Self-regulated learning:

What is Self-Regulated Learning?

Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview

The Secret of Self-Regulated Learning

TEAL Center Fact Sheet No. 3: Self-Regulated Learning

Third Party Tools

As defined in Techterm (2017), third party software refers to programs that are developed by companies other than the company that developed the computer's operating system. Third party tools include applications for mindmap, timelines, visual presentations, photo galleries, blogs and microblogs, bibliography management, shared webpage annotations, and more. For example, Adobe Photoshop supports plug-ins that add features like extra filters and selection tools to the program. These plug-ins may be created and distributed by other companies, but are designed to work with Adobe Photoshop. Therefore, they are called third party plug-ins.

For example, students can share mind maps with others who have third party mind map applications. Third party tools can enhance connectivism and ONLEs by providing resources in a rapidly evolving technology driven environment and by providing tools that allow users to collaborate easily with others. As stated by Siemens (2004), connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on rapidly altering foundations. Third party tools allow learners to be flexible and encourages them to adapt to “rapidly altering foundations. Especially with today’s use of smartphones, users are downloading new applications daily. The top used applications being used are social media, according to Bell’s Top Downloaded Apps of 2016 report, Social Media apps, including Snapchat was the most downloaded app of 2016. These numbers illustrate, students have a huge advantage for collaboration due to the popularity of social media. A key component in connectivism, as stated by Siemens, is the concept that nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning. (Siemens 2004).

To support an ONLE with third party tools, students can choose their tool from a select list and define the problem they seek to resolve. As Siemens explains, decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer today, it may change tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision. (2004). However, students should be provided with guidance. De-la-Fuente-Valentin, et.al. (2011) suggests, give students as much advance information as possible about the tools to be used, and give opportunities to research and ask questions before committing to using the tool. In addition, the instructor should be knowledgeable of the tools their students are using. Limit the number of tools or provide information in your course syllabus about all third party tools or services planned for use in the course should be outlined.

When using third party tools in an ONLE there are important things to consider. As outlined by Texas State University (2017) users should use pre and post assessments, or surveys to collect information of the impact of the third party tool. This provides instructors and students the opportunity to self reflect and gather data. Instructors should also retain copies of student work if student use of the tool is tied to a grade. They may do this by collecting links, or requesting assignment summaries and feedback through Google Docs in which students can even screen capture images of their online communications. If the learning is informal and not tied to a grade it is not necessary to obtain copies of student work. Instructors can retain copies of student work by copying posts and saving. Also, copyright issues may arise if the materials used will be made available to the public, so check to see if permission is required. Finally, ensure that student data and intellectual property are protected (De-la-Fuente-Valentin, et.al., 2011). Before allowing students to post and share information, instructors must clearly define what kinds of information or content they will be asking students to submit and get explicit permission to do so.

Resources for teaching with Third Party Tools in an ONLE:

Google+

Concept Draw

Wearable Technology

Smart watches, “Tech wear”, virtual reality headsets, and “Snap Chat” sunglasses that can record or take pictures instantly all while making a fashion statement can be defined as “Wearable Technology.” Wearable Technology is defined as “Electronics that can be worn on the body, either as an accessory or as part of material used in clothing. One of the major features of wearable technology is its ability to connect to the Internet, enabling data to be exchanged between a network and the device” ("Wearable Technology," 2017, p. 1). Earlier forms of wearables date back to the 17^th century in the form of an abacus ring worn by Chinese bean counters. This allowed users to perform mathematical calculations by moving small beads in rows (Roufai, 2015).

Today’s popularity with “hands-free” wearables come in different forms such as smart clothes that can be worn to prevent electrostatic discharge, or “static electricity,” as well as web-enabled glasses and Bluetooth headsets. These devices can be personalized to allow individuals to monitor and record data, complete tasks, provide motivation and evaluate performance (Ballou, 2015). For example, smart watches or “tech wear” can be worn to monitor heart rate, blood pressure, sleep, and day to day activities.

View this Prezi presentation for more information on how wearable technology affects our daily lives as consumers. In addition, the following page presents various forms of wearables within a table according to type, style, price, functionality and website access.

Four types of wearable technologies:

Integrating wearable technology in the classroom for instructional use can be displayed in different ways. Examples include exploring and data collection on digital field trips using Oculus, a reality 3D reality imaging system worn over the eyes like glasses. Many high school seniors are collaborating with graduate students about college life using Google Glass, and teacher-created global scavenger hunts for kids on the playground using Bluetooth trackers. In 2016, Oral Roberts University located in Tulsa, Oklahoma, implemented wearable technology as part of their mandated curriculum (click here) ("Wearable Technology," 2016).

Wearable technology is advancing quickly, and has not only changed the role playing in gaming applications, but it has remarkably improved daily techniques and practices for teaching, and learning affecting both instructors and their students. Today’s advances in worldwide technology, smart clothes and smart devices can accurately predict, calculate, measure and record academic performance with amazing speed. Instead of spending excessive hours grading papers (i.e. traditional learning), instructors can focus more on the students, and use creative inquiry with measurable results.

Wearable Technology Resources:

http://www.teachthought.com/the-future-of-learning/technology/36-ways-to-use-wearable-technology-in-the-classroom/

http://www.emergingedtech.com/2013/04/5-ways-google-glass-can-be-used-in-education/

http://www.emergingedtech.com/2014/04/augmented-reality-emerging-education-technology/

http://www.createeducation.com/blog/code-create-corelli-college/

Formal, Informal, and Non-Formal Learning

According to the Infed Organization, the terms formal education, informal education, and non-formal education were first coined in the 1960s’s and referred to the varying degrees of exposure to education in developing countries (Fordham, 2014). However, education professionals from all backgrounds have grown to see the relevance and usefulness of these terms—particularly in relation to the digital age.

The three types of learning, as defined by the original Coombs Typology, are as follows:

• Informal education refers to the lifelong process during which individuals acquire refined attitudes, values, skillsets, and knowledge from their daily experiences and educative influences. Resources within the individual’s environment shape these experiences, whether it is derived from family, friends, coworkers, the marketplace, or the mass media (Coombs, 1973).
• Formal education is the interpretation many are most familiar with. It is the hierarchical, chronological system which spans from primary school through the university. This includes general academic studies, specialized programs, and technical and professional training (Coombs, 1973).
• Non-formal education is any organized educational opportunity outside of the traditional learning setting. It typically functions as an integral feature of a diverse activity which is intended to align with learning objectives (Coombs, 1973).

These terms should not be considered concrete categories. There is some conceptual overlap, as there often is within the field of Education as a whole. In fact, “many experts believe that a blending of formal and informal methods of teaching and learning can create a higher education environment that fosters experimentation, curiosity, and above all, creativity” (Johnson, Adams, Estrada, & Freeman, 2015, p. 22). A common claim is that, in order for informal learning to truly blend with the traditional learning environment, there must be explicit, real-world applications for the content which are presented as key competencies (Johnson, et al., 2015).

For example, if a school were to arrange an opportunity for instructors who are interested in the latest Web 2.0 tools to meet with other like-minded instructors at a local convention, the opportunity for informal and/or non-formal learning would arise, while still blending with the objectives of formal learning. However, the challenge in this approach is that there is little understanding of the methods for measuring learning which happens in these contexts. There is rarely substantial acknowledgement, and this sets an unstable precedent for other, larger institutions who are looking for guidance and inspiration on this front (Johnson, et al., 2015).

This is not to say that effectively blending informal, non-formal, and formal learning is impossible, or even unlikely. A high demand for user-friendly, engaging social media has already facilitated an emphasis on connectedness in modern learners. Even now, “social networks enable the creation of learning teams that mimic interest groups — students are able to congregate by areas of curiosity” (Johnson, et al., 2015, p. 22). This is more than teenagers craving validation from their peers. It is, at its core, a representation of what happens when the three types of learning meet in a way which feels accessible to the user.

Still, if those in academia are interested in harnessing the combined impact of informal, formal, and non-formal learning, the issue of identifying methods for evaluation persists. Organizations such as the European University Continuing Education Network in Russia, the National Science Foundation Directorate for Education and Human Resources in the United States, and the Cork Institute of Technology in Ireland have all invested their time and effort in studying the influence of aligning formal, informal, and non-formal learning opportunities in the formal education setting (Johnson, et al., 2015).

Chapter Reflections

This chapter began with a summary of teaching strategies with ONLE and PLE and then evolved into an explanation and review of third party tools. It was followed be wearable technology and clarification between formal, informal and non-formal learning. As the chapter closes, it is a significant task to review the original objectives by asking related questions. Is the learner able to reflect upon and answer the following reflective questions in response to the original objectives for this chapter?

• What are some effective strategies for the implementation of the ONLE and PLE.
• Explain what third party tools are and identify one or two.
• Name three of the four types of wearable technology discussed. What potential applications exist for wearable technology in a learning environment?
• What is the difference between formal, informal, and non-formal learning?

One charge that has been oft-repeated in education is the mantra to help students to become lifelong learners. The use of PLEs and ONLEs can help to facilitate that education and third party tools can enhance the process in formal, informal, and non-formal learning. The use of physical technologies (of which wearable is a part) can be considered more elusive than the previous topics insomuch as it has a continually-evolving nature. There are continually new products the are too new to be affordable in the mainstream classroom and other technologies that are so impressive that one must seek to find a way to apply it to the field of education. With all this said, it leaves one wondering and reflecting: What is our next big breakthrough for open network and personal learning environments?

References

Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890/1663

Ballou, A. (2015). Not Just a Meditation Tool: The Muse Brain Sensing Headband In Neuroscience Research. Retrieved from https://medtechboston.medstro.com/blog/2015/10/14/not-just-a-meditation-tool-the-muse-brain-sensing-headband-in-neuroscience-research/

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and higher education, 15(1), 3-8.

De-la-Fuente-Valentin, L., Pardo, A., & Kloos, C. D. (2011). Generic Service Integration in Adaptive Learning Experiences Using IMS Learning Design. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1160-1170.

Dell, K. (2016). Apple just revealed the most-downloaded app of 2016. MashUp. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from http://mashable.com/2016/12/06/most-downloaded-apps-2016/#fdxv5rQGe5q8

Duffy, J., & Colon, A. (2017). The Best Fitness Trackers of 2017. Retrieved from http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2404445,00.asp

Galloway, C. M. (2001). Vygotsky's Constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/

Gutierrez, J. V., Diaz Barriga, F., Ramirez-Corona, N., Lopez-Malo, A., & Palou, E. (2016). Personal Learning Environments: Analysis of Learning processes, reflection, and identity in an academic context. Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana. Doi: 10.18260/p.25889

ORU Integrates Wearable Technology. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.oru.edu/news/oru_news/20121203_garmin_technology.php

Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2015a). A learning model for enhancing the student's control in educational process using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 780-792.

Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2015b). Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers & Education, 81, 235-246.

Roufai, S. E. (2015). Wearable technology – why it is the future. Retrieved from http://prismeinternational.net/blog/wearable_technology/

Siemens, G. (2014). Connectivisim: A theory for a digital age. ELearnSpace: Everything ELearning. Retrieved April 28, 2017, from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Tech Terms. Third Party Tools. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from https://techterms.com/definition/thirdparty

Texas State University. Using third-party tools for instruction. Third-Party Service Providers (TPSP). Retrieved April 25,2017, from http://www.its.txstate.edu/departments/etc/facultyprojectlab/services/web2

Tu, C. H. (2014). Concepts of PLE & ONLE. In C. H. Tu, Strategies for Building a Web 2.0 Learning Environment. ABC-CLIO. Santa Barbara, CA.

Wearable technology. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wearable-technology.asp