22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Knowledge Gained About Teaching Methodologies With the Use of Digital Technologies.
Anna Sánchez-Caballé, Francesc M. Esteve-Mon, M. Ángeles Llopis-Nebot, Gracia Valdeolivas, Sara Buils-Morales, Virginia Viñoles-Cosentino
Universitat Jaume I, Spain
Presenting Author: Sánchez-Caballé, Anna;
Esteve-Mon, Francesc M.
In recent years, universities throughout Europe have undergone a major transformation process. This is mainly due to two elements. On the one hand, the beginning of the so-called European Higher Education Area (Michavila et al., 2011); and on the other hand, accelerated digitisation in education, which has been enhanced as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic (Gallagher et al., 2021).
These changes have also implied or evidenced the need for modifications in the didactic methodologies used and the conceptions of the Teaching-Learning (T-L) processes. In a way, the more traditional models of education (those centred on the transmission of knowledge in which the student had a passive role) have become obsolete. Nowadays, it is possible to move towards more active T-L options in which the learner becomes the centre of the process. This conception of the T-L process is also in line with the much-needed approach to lifelong learning and competence-based learning (Baartman et al., 2007).
It is important to take into consideration the role that the digital competence of university professors acquires today in their reconciliation with their research career, since it can be assumed that there are more and more "increased-researchers". In other words, someone who knows how to find the professional opportunities offered by their own personal learning environment (PLE) to learn in all aspects, individually and collectively, sharing knowledge with others, without detaching themselves from their mission and social commitment to their professional work (Castañeda and Adell, 2013).
The active role of the teacher can be considered as an essential engine to start adapting their educational proposals to the demands of today's liquid society (Bauman, 2003), emphasizing that the provision of technological resources is not enough to guarantee success and educational innovation (Sánchez-López et al., 2021).
However, although this need for change is gradually becoming more evident and clearer, the COVID-19 pandemic was also a reality check. During the period of online lessons, it was reflected that there is still a long way to go to reach a good use of digital tools in E-A processes (Esteve-Mon et al., 2022). This is mainly due to aspects related to: (1) the digital skills of teachers and their motivation; (2) the organisation of the educational centre; (3) the pedagogical culture that exists; and (4) the resources to which they have access.
It is essential to shed some light on the development of pedagogical digital competence (PDC), which we defined by From (2017: 48) as: “Pedagogical Digital Competence refers to the ability to consistently apply the attitudes, knowledge and skills required to plan and conduct, and to evaluate and revise on an ongoing basis, ICT-supported teaching, based on theory, current research and proven experience with a view to supporting students’ learning in the best possible way”.According to this context, this research focuses on exploring methodological trends in university classrooms when digital technologies are integrated into them. And, according to this, we want to answer the following research questions:
RQ1. Which countries publish on the topic?
RQ2. In which period there are more publications related to the topic?
RQ3. What didactic methodologies are used when TD are integrated in university classrooms?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFor this purpose, as will be detailed in the following section, a systematic review of the literature has been carried out in the four most relevant international databases in the educational field -Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Dialnet (for Spanish speaking users) .
A systematic literature review (SLR), as its name suggests, consists of an exhaustive analysis of the documentation published on a topic in several scientific databases. In this case, the present SLR was performed on the basis of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria set out by Yepes-Nuñez et al. (2010).
The review process began with a search, as previously indicated, in the following databases: Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and Dialnet-. Specifically, the search was initiated using the following formula: "teaching methodologies" AND (digital OR technology OR tech OR ICT) AND Integration AND (University OR "higher education"). The search was performed without any type of time restriction.
According to these parameters, the initial search yielded a total of 107 documents. These 107 documents were filtered for duplication (i.e., if they appeared more than once in the database); for the appropriateness of the title and abstract to the research; and for the appropriateness of the full text to the research. Prior to filtering, several inclusion or exclusion criteria were agreed among the researchers. These were mainly focused on: (1) the relationship of the topic with learning methodologies and digital technologies; (2) that the context was higher education; and (3) that the language was understandable by the participating researchers (English, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese or Italian).
After all this peer review process, 23 documents were obtained. These 23 were analyzed qualitatively using the MAXQDA program (2018 version).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAn in-depth analysis of the 23 scientific papers mentioned above shows that most of the papers published on this subject were written by Spanish authors (10 of the 23). The rest of the documents were written by authors of diverse origins from institutions in Latin America, the United States and Portugal, among others.
As regards the frequency of publication, most of the papers were published in the last 15 years (taking as a reference the year 2022 when the selection process of the articles was carried out).
Finally, in reference to the methodologies used when digital technologies are applied, the most common are teamwork (n=4); problem-based learning (n=3) and exams (n=3) when students are to be evaluated. Methodologies such as simulation (n=2), debate, round table or colloquium (n=2) as well as exercises and problems (n=2) are also used less frequently.
Thus, the results obtained show that active and collaborative strategies are some of the most reiterated on occasions, e.g. group work, problem-based learning, debate, or simulation. Nevertheless / Despite that, we also found different studies that use more classical strategies, such as exams, exercises, individual study, or lectures, among those used with digital technologies.
On a global note, the bottom line is that there has been building up an assortment of teaching strategies enhanced by digital technologies. On the one hand, individualist practices on the basis of knowledge transmission. On the other hand, student-centered methodologies and based on active learning. We cannot get away from the fact that DT allows teachers to develop transformative didactic methodologies in order to achieve significant learning by students (Cela et al., 2017).
ReferencesBaartman, L. K., Bastiaens, T. J., Kirschner, P. A., and van der Vleuten, C. P. (2007). Evaluating assessment quality in competence-based education: A qualitative comparison of two frameworks. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 114-129.
Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid Modernity. Polity Press.
Castañeda, L. and Adell, J. (2013). Entornos personales de aprendizaje: Claves para el ecosistema educativo en red.
Cela, J. M., Esteve, V., Esteve-Mon, F., González, J., and Gisbert, M. (2017). Teachers in the digital society: a proposal based on transformative pedagogy and advanced technology. Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 21(1), 403-422.
Esteve-Mon, F., Llopis, M. A., and Adell, J. (2022). Nueva visión de la competencia digital docente en tiempos de pandemia. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana, 27(96), 1-11. http://bitly.ws/zrHR
From, J. (2017). Pedagogical Digital Competence--Between Values, Knowledge and Skills. Higher Education Studies, 7(2), 43-50. http://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v7n2p43
Gallagher, T., Bergan, S., Harkavy, I., Munck, R., and van't Land, H. (2021). Higher education's response to the Covid-19 pandemic - Building a more sustainable and democratic future. Council of Europe/ Conseil de l’Europe.
Michavila, F., Ripollés, M., and Esteve-Mon, F. (2011). El día después de Bolonia. Tecnos.
Sánchez-López, I., Bonilla del Río, M., and Oliveira Soares, I. D. (2021). Creatividad digital para transformar el aprendizaje: Empoderamiento desde un enfoque com-educativo. Comunicar: revista científica iberoamericana de comunicación y educación, 69 (24), 113-123. https://doi.org/10.3916/C69-2021-09
Yepes-Nuñez, J. J., Urrutia, G., Romero-Garcia, M., and Alonso-Fernandez, S. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Revista Española de Cardiología (English ed.), 74(9), 790-799.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Exploring the Effects of Metacognitive Prompts on Learning Outcomes in Multimedia Learning
Libor Juhaňák1, Zuzana Juříková2, Nicol Dostálová1, Vojtěch Juřík3
1Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Educational Sciences, Czech Republic; 2Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, HUME Lab – Experimental Humanities Laboratory, Czech Republic; 3Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Psychology, Czech Republic
Presenting Author: Juhaňák, Libor
For more than two decades, the concept of self-regulation and self-regulated learning has received a great deal of attention in the scientific discourse of educational science, due to its proposed positive relationship with students' learning outcomes (Boekaerts, Pintrich & Zeidner, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011). To date, several different definitions and models of self-regulation and self-regulated learning have been proposed (Panadero, 2017), leading to some theoretical fragmentation and confusion. Nevertheless, most definitions and models consider self-regulated learning as a cyclical process consisting of three phases: 1) the preparatory phase, 2) the performance phase (i.e., the phase of actual task performance), and 3) the reflective or the appraisal phase. Within each of these three general phases, students then engage in a range of cognitive, affective and metacognitive processes (Panadero, 2017; Wong et al., 2019; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011).
Since the existing research suggests that students engaging in self-regulated learning are able to efficiently manage their own learning and perform better on learning tasks, leading to their academic success (Boekaerts, Pintrich & Zeidner, 2000; McInerney et al., 2012), researchers have focused on different support mechanisms or scaffolds in order to help students engage in effective self-regulation during learning. The need for external support for students' ability to regulate their own learning seems to be particularly important in the context of online learning and learning from digital media, due to the higher demands on the students' autonomy and their competence to navigate themselves in complex multimedia learning materials (Wong et al., 2019).
One of the proposed mechanisms to support self-regulated learning that has received increased research attention, especially in recent years, is metacognitive prompting. Prompts in general can be seen as a temporary support mechanism or scaffold for students in order to assist them in the use of an appropriate learning strategy (Bannert, 2009). Metacognitive prompts, in contrast to cognitive prompts, focus on engaging students in higher-level learning strategies such as goal setting, monitoring, reflection, etc. A considerable amount of available studies provide evidence for the effectiveness of metacognitive prompts in improving students' learning outcomes (Azevedo et al., 2011; Devolder, van Braak, & Tondeur, 2012; Guo, 2022; Manlove, Lazonder, & de Jong, 2009).
Although current research suggests that metacognitive prompts can stimulate the use of higher-order learning strategies and thereby improve learning outcomes, it still remains unclear whether and to what extent metacognitive prompts improve students' learning outcomes, and how this relationship changes in the context of learning from multimedia learning materials. The aim of this paper is therefore to present the results of an experiment focusing on the use of metacognitive prompts in the context of multimedia learning. The aim of the experiment was to investigate the effects of metacognitive prompts on students' learning outcomes and whether these effects varied according to the type of learning material (i.e., text vs. multimedia).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe paper presents the results of an experiment conducted in the form of a laboratory-controlled experiment with experimental and control conditions and task randomisation. The experiment used a 2x2 within-between subjects factorial design to assess the performance of more than 100 participants. Two balanced groups of participants represent between-subjects cases, where the presence of metacognitive prompts was manipulated as the main independent variable (i.e., the first factor). At the same time, all subjects were exposed to two different types of learning materials represented by plain text and multimedia learning content respectively, which corresponds to the second independent variable (i.e., the second factor). The individual tasks were randomised to prevent serial position effects in within-subjects cases. Participants were assigned randomly into each group (between-subjects cases) in order to avoid the possible transfer of the effect of metacognitive prompts to non-prompted tasks.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe paper will provide a description of the experiment focusing on the use of metacognitive prompts in the context of multimedia learning and it will describe and explain its main findings. In particular, the attention will be given to 1) a thorough description of the methodology of the experiment conducted, including a description of the stimuli, setting, and procedure of the experiment, 2) answers to the main research questions dealing with the effects of metacognitive prompts on students' learning outcomes and the possible effects of the type of learning material, and 3) implications of the results for further research and the use of metacognitive prompts in practice.
ReferencesAzevedo, R., Cromley, J. G., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., & Winters, F. I. (2011). Adaptive content and process scaffolding: A key to facilitating students' self-regulated learning with hypermedia. Psychology Science, 53(1), 106.
Bannert, M. (2009). Promoting self-regulated learning through prompts. Journal of Pedagogical Psychology, 23(2), 139–145.
Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., and Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of Self-Regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Devolder, A., van Braak, J., & Tondeur, J. (2012). Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: Systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 557–573.
Guo, J. (2022). Using metacognitive prompts to enhance self-regulated learning and learning outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies in computer-based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(3), 11–832.
Manlove, S., Lazonder, A. W., & de Jong, T. (2009). Trends and issues of regulative support use during inquiry learning: Patterns from three studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(4), 795–803.
McInerney, D. M., Cheng, R. W., Mok, M. M. C., & Lam, A. K. H. (2012). Academic self-concept and learning strategies: Direction of effect on student academic achievement. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(3), 249–269.
Panadero, E. (2017). A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(422), 1–28.
Wong, J., Baars, M., Davis, D., Van Der Zee, T., Houben, G.-J., & Paas, F. (2019). Supporting Self-Regulated Learning in Online Learning Environments and MOOCs: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(4–5), 356–373.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 13–40). Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance. New York, NY: Routledge.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Learning Designs and Pedagogical Space – Escaping the Straitjacket?
Verner Larsen, Lisbeth Frederiksen
VIA University College, Denmark
Presenting Author: Larsen, Verner;
Frederiksen, Lisbeth
Due to neoliberal ideologies, NPM, accountability systems, and market-oriented management of the public sector, there has been a political effort over the past decades to rationalise and streamline education; for example by making standards and formats for education and teaching courses in higher education. This has happened as part of a global competition for the best possible educational output for the least money possible (Biesta et al., 2015, 2011; Green, 2010; Mausethagen & Smeby, 2016). This international development has also taken place in the Danish education system, including University Colleges. Wanting to reduce costs is by no means new, nor that teachers share each other’s teaching plans in less formalised forms, but it might prove problematic when and if instructional/learning designs are formalised to a high degree and become standards rather than being created on a more voluntary basis and made flexible in relation to reusing.
Within a Nordic didactic tradition, teacher autonomy is given a very high value, and therefore there is reason to warn against the idea that teaching can be produced in packages that others can open and use directly in new contexts. On the other hand, there is also reason to address potential bias within learning designs. For example, that reusing learning designs is always a straitjacket, which requires that the design must be performed as it, is without the possibility of modification and context adaptation.
This paper draws on two completed research projects and one ongoing project in which we have taken a critical, but constructive view of learning designs. Our research interest has been to uncover the possibilities of utilising a design’s resources in the form of qualified pedagogical ideas and reflections on the part of the designers, but at the same time preserve a pedagogical space with the teachers who stand as those who have to use the design. This is a fundamental dilemma. On the one hand, a design must appear pedagogically well-crafted and with well-communicated pedagogical instructions so that the designers’ competence can benefit the reusers. On the other hand, the design must not be too restrictive and dictating as this leaves no room for the reusing teachers’ pedagogical adaptation of the design to their own teaching context. Therefore, it is all about finding a balance. The question that we investigate in this paper is therefore: Which factors determine the extent to which a pedagogical space for the reuse of learning designs is achieved?
We have constructed the theoretical framework with a background in literature studies. This has shown that in the research field of learning designs there has been limited attention to the problems that arise when teachers other than the designers have to take over the design, make sense of it and bring it to life. Our theoretical framework combines different traditions. The concept of ‘context sensitivity’ has been an important premise for our approach to learning design as our starting point is that no two contexts are ever exactly the same. Teaching is first and foremost an interpersonal and situated practice that cannot be anticipated as such but unfolds in the meeting between the teacher and the student about a content (Oettingen, 2010). This requires a degree of autonomy and that the teacher can act as a reflective practitioner who makes professional judgements (Wackerhausen, 2008; Hedegaard & Krogh-Jespersen 2011). It is therefore always necessary to some extent to translate a design before it can be used in another context. Therefore, our analyses also include concepts of knowledge transfer and translation with inspiration, partly from actor network theory (ANT) (Callon, 1984; Latour, 1996) and partly Scandinavian institutionalism (Røvik, 2016).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedBased on our presumptions on existing literature in the field and on the theoretical considerations, we selected a number of empirical cases and examined these. The core of the empirical research design is therefore a multiple case study comprising five very different cases from the same UC institution. Each case is represented by a learning design. In the selection, we focused on as many variations as possible in relation to a number of different parameters.
The case study has primarily been based on hermeneutic epistemology. It has been a strategy for empirical exploration of a selected contemporary phenomenon in its natural context using various data sources (Robertson, Neves de Azevedo & Dale, 2016; Robson & Yin in Ramian, 2012).
The specific empirical methods used were:
• Document analyses of important texts that formed the basis of the learning designs, both analogue and digital.
• Individual and group interviews with key informants involved in format development, sharing and reuse.
• Observations from meetings, teaching, etc., where formats were discussed or tested.
When studying the cases, our focus was on the three processes: Developing, sharing and reusing. Initially, the analyses were data-driven, but later they were supplemented by more concept-driven interpretations of the cases, which have further qualified the analytical gaze that eventually was enacted to answer the research questions.
We first analysed the individual design cases in their own context where the use of different data sources enabled data triangulation. From the individual case analyses, we expanded the analysis with theoretical generalisation, which contributed to challenging and developing the preconceptions and theories that preceded the research. This led us to develop two key concepts to understand what is essential to a learning design’s pedagogical space. These key concepts, which we elaborate on below, were later tested in another project named ‘Students’ Academic Digital Competences’ (STAK) as analytic tools to identify and uncover pedagogical spaces in a number of learning designs (Frederiksen et al., 2021). On the basis of these experiences, we have further developed and refined the concepts.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe two key concepts developed for the analysis of pedagogical space in learning designs we called ‘explanation’ and ‘regulation’. The former addresses how thoroughly and detailed the design is described, elaborated and argued for, while the latter deals with how strongly bound/inflexible the design is. This aspect has two sides in that inflexibility can be due to the internal cohesiveness of teaching/learning elements, or that the granularity of the elements is coarse (Wiley, 2000). The inflexibility can also depend on the extent to which the design is granted authority, for example by ‘external’ power from a management body. We argue that both explanation and regulation represent continua, where explanation can range between simple and comprehensive, and regulation can range between weak and strong. The empirical cases have shown that the two concepts can vary independently of each other, whereby four modalities for educational space emerge. Simple explanation combined with weak regulation initiates a large educational space, but on the other hand, it requires the reuser to add further elements to the design. On the contrary, comprehensive explanation and strong regulation initiate a very small pedagogical space as even the smallest elements are required to be carried out.
We believe that the combination of ‘explanation’ and ‘regulation’ as a pair of concepts adds new and important aspects to design research. It is innovative that we have combined a number of dimensions, the discursive and content dimension represented by ‘explanation’ and the power dimension represented by ‘regulation’ as what frames pedagogical spaces in learning designs. As a theoretical model with its four modalities, it is a powerful tool to analyse learning design processes. It can show potentials as well as constraints in achieving an appropriate pedagogical space.
ReferencesBiesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 21(6), 624–640.
Biesta, G. J. J. (2011). Learning democracy in school and society: Education, lifelong learning, and the politics of citizenship. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The sociological review, 32(1_suppl), 196–233.
Frederiksen, L. L., & Larsen, V. (2021). STAK-læringsmønstre: Studerendes akademiske digitale kompetencer. Evalueringsrapport.
Green, J. (2010). Education, professionalism and the quest for accountability – Hitting the target, but missing the point. Routledge, Taylor & Francis, 2010.
Hedegaard, K. M., & Krogh-Jespersen, K. (2011). Didaktiske kategorier og udfordringer i professionsuddannelserne. In K. M. Hedegaard, & K. Krogh-Jespersen (Eds.), Professionsdidaktik – grundlag for undervisning i professionsrettet uddannelse (pp. 87-111). Klim.
Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, culture, and activity, 3(4), 228–245.
Mausethagen, S. & Smeby, J. C. (2016). Contemporary education policy and teacher professionalism. In Bourgeault, I., Denis J., & Kuhlmann, (Eds.), The Routledge companion to the professions and professionalism. Routledge.
Oettingen, A. V. (2010). Almen pædagogik. Gyldendals lærerbibliotek.
Robertson, S., Neves de Azevedo, M., and Dale, R., (2016) Higher education, the EU, and the cultural political economy of regionalism, in S. Robertson, K. Olds, R. Dale and Q-A Dang (eds) Global Regionalisms and Higher Globalisation Education & Social Futures Education, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Røvik, K. A. (2016). Knowledge Transfer as Translation: Review and Elements of an Instrumental Theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(3), 290–310. Wackerhausen, S. (2008). Refleksion. Praksis og refleksion, 1, 1–21.
Wiley, D. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. Learning technology, 2830, 1–35.
|
