This blog post relates to my study of CCK11.
What are the downsides? (http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7049.pdf)
As a learning platform that is by definition always evolving, a PLE requires students to engage in ongoing decision making to maintain, organise, and grow their learning environments. The process of self-directed learning requires a degree of self-awareness, and it must be given time to mature. Some students, however, may have never taken the time to think about their own metacognition or to reflect on how they learn best. These less experienced students may not be ready for the responsibility that comes with building and managing a PLE.
Interesting, and a serious downside indeed. Managing one’s own learning is not a trivial task – it’s a big responsibility. Is it reasonable to expect that everyone be able to manage their own learning to this level of detail? A noble vision, but is it practical or reasonably attainable, or simply a fairy-tale view of education? Let me explain my context, and why I believe this downside is understated, and why I don’t believe this ideal is realistic in a global way – a panacea.
I’m from Australia. Higher education in Australia is partly funded by the Australian Government. Students pay a portion of the tuition fees, and can defer their payments until after they obtain a job. In the meantime, the tuition debt only grows inline with the CPI. In other words, Australian tertiary students do not pay interest on their loans, and only pay a proportion of the overall costs which are subsidised by the Government. Tertiary education in Australia is very accessible. Given this accessibility, and the diminished cost to the individual, there is greater diversity in the motivations of students in Australian higher-ed. The fall-out from failure isn’t as significant as other countries where the individual bears the burden of the full costs of their education. Don’t get me wrong, I think we have an outstanding system in place, that provides equitable access to higher education. You don’t have to be wealthy to have a go in Australia.
I’m getting to the point… promise. Take the following quote from a blog post I wrote some time ago, where I was reflecting on the book Teaching for Quality Learning at University, written by John Biggs.
Biggs introduces two student characters that represent two distinct groups of students that comprise a class. They are also featured in a short film titled Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding. Their names are Susan and Robert. Susan is the typical academically minded student. She comes to classes prepared, including pre-reading class materials, reflection on this material, and questions about her understanding of it. Then there is Robert. Robert is characterised as a student who is there out of necessity rather than desire. He only wants to achieve sufficiently to be able to get a good job. The course he is doing may not have been his first choice. He comes to class with little preparation or prior reflection. He hopes to rote learn and memorise to be able to pass his course. These two characters form the cornerstone of his theories into the effectiveness of active versus passive learning.
Not all students are motivated in the same way when it comes to managing their learning. Robert is not so interested in managing his learning – its about hoops to jump through to get his piece of paper (qualification). Constructive Alignment, a theory by John Biggs suggests amongst other things that learning must be active – it is all about what the students do. This in my opinion has merit, but like all theories, is contextual. That aside, Biggs believes that you can create learning situations that force students such as Robert to be more active learners. As John puts it in an epilogue to the Teaching Teaching & Understanding Understanding Video (Part 3):
Thus we see that alignment throughout the system is based on the relevant constructive student activity. In our “apply” example, the intended learning outcome, the teaching/learning activities, and the assessment task are all focused on that single verb “apply”: we have woven a constructive web from which students would find difficulty in escaping without learning.
However, this method of making it difficult for students to escape in my view can often lead to task corruption. It astounds me what lengths students will go to to avoid doing something if their heart just isn’t in it.
When I reflect on my early teens as an undergraduate student, my level of maturity and my motivations at the time were not conducive to learning management. I was more interested in drinking, girls, and having fun. I’m not suggesting that all teenagers are this way, but I don’t believe I was unique either. Only when I commenced my Master degree, in my mid-20s did I become mature enough to take on the responsibility of managing my own learning. This is evident through my improved GPA. At the time, the web 2.0 revolution had not yet hit mainstream and many of these ideas had not yet been conceived (Oh I’m getting old).
Some may be able to manage their learning using a PLE/PLN, and I see PLE/PLNs as but one way of student learning. We must remember the crucial point that whatever we do, it must fit the context. Forcing students to create their own PLE/PLN and be able to manage their learning through this personalised environment is thwart with danger. Even if you spend the time developing students’ abilities to manage their own learning, doesn’t mean that they will actually do it.