Toward a New Learning Ecology in 1:1 Learning Environments: Theory

into Practice

John Lee, Karen Hollebrands, Hiller A. Spires, Carl A. Young, & Eric

Wiebe

Theoretical Grounding for “New Learning Ecology”

John Seeley Brown (1999) introduced a knowledge ecology by using the definition of “an open system, dynamic and interdependent, diverse, partially self-organizing, and adaptive” (p. 3).

Barron (2006) defined a learning ecology as the “set of contexts found in physical or virtual spaces that provide opportunities for learning,” which may include formal, informal, and non-formal settings (p. 195).

Spires, Wiebe, Young, Hollebrands, & Lee (2009) defined a new learning ecology as an emergent concept that is being prompted by 1:1 learning environments.

Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes (2009) referenced a learning ecology perspective as useful in conceptualizing learning & teaching across Web 2.0 spaces of home, school, work, and community.

Research Focus

Educational 1:1 computing environments and

the New Learning Ecology

Four Conditions for a New Learning Ecology

Immediate and Constant Access to Information and a Global Community• Evolving national and state policy documents call for the support of

globally-connected instruction (P21, 2004), (NC State Board of Education, 2008; Dede, 2009b).

• Students' pervasive digital connectedness and production has been documented nationally (Lenhart, Madden, Macgill, and Smith, 2007) as well as regionally North Carolina (Spires, Lee, Turner, and Johnson, 2008).

Intensity, Relevance, and Personalization of Learning• Resulting from a shift to a student-centric approach using

dynamic, networked computational tools, tapping into networks of imagination (Senges, Brown and Rheingold, 2008).

• Active pursuit of learning as productive inquiry (Little and Ray, 2005).

• Developing both semantic and personal significance (Wesch, 2008)

Theoretical underpinnings for each of the NLE conditions

Theoretical underpinnings for each of the NLE conditions

Highly-Developed Teacher Capacities• In addition to content expertise, teachers must have highly-

developed capacities for facilitation, improvisation, coaching, and consultation.

• Teaching 2.0 is emerging in response to a 21st century convergence of forces that includes a knowledge-based global workforce, an evolving understanding of how people learn, and a widespread adoption of collaborative teamwork in the workplace (Carroll, 2007).

Highly-Developed Learner Dispositions• Defining the learner through dispositions and

worldviews rather than just expertise in a content area (e.g., self-direction & self-regulation balanced with curiosity and creativity).

• Recognition of learning as a social practice that evolves around learner interests (Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robinson, and Weigel, 2006)

Research Question

What is the nature of learning in 1:1 environments?

or

How are the proposed conditions of the new learning ecology instantiated in 1:1 environments?

Method

• Multi-case study of four classrooms in 1:1 environments

• Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.• Literal replication case approach

Participants

• Four teachers in a rural mid-Atlantic comprehensive high school• English/Language Arts• Mathematics• Science• Social Studies

Data Sources and Collection

• Observations of class using RTOP (Reform Teaching Observation Protocol)

• Field notes • Interviews with teachers• Analysis of teacher work products• Four teachers• 20 observations• 10 interviews

Data Analysis

• Observation notes from one teacher’s class were coded independently by four researchers

• Initial closed coding system was used (NLE conditions)• Immediate & Constant access• Intensity, relevance, and personalization of

learning • Highly developed teacher capacities (content

expert, coach, consultant, facilitator, and improvisational artist)

• Highly developed learner dispositions (self-directed, self-regulated, curious, and creative)

• Codes were compared and contrasted and refinements to their definitions were made

General findings

• New Learning Ecologies are contextualized, variable, complex, and dynamic.• New Learning Ecology took form in a

contextualized manner suggesting plural NLEs• A continuum of teacher capacities results in

variability• Teachers move in and out of roles which

contributes to the dynamic nature of the learning ecology.

Findings directly relevant to theorized New Learning Ecology

•Personalization of learning in the

classroom• accommodations, tailoring • 1:1 relationship between teachers and students

“I can focus on students one-on-one. Particularly some of those back here. Those students that failed the [end of course test]. I could spend more time with them, and the other ones. And they asked more questions, which is good… Being able to walk around the classroom, I can do that much more than I used to be able to. With Sketchpad every kid can work at their own pace…With Sketchpad I can walk around and help every student, which I haven’t been able to do a lot of in the past.”

Findings directly relevant to theorized New Learning Ecology

•Teachers as coaches• motivation, encouragement, modeling

“I try to guide them through things. Like today, the little girl right here. Her answer to everything is “I don’t know. I don’t know how to start. I don’t know how to do this”…. And I’m giving her examples, pulling her along. This is what you do. This is how you do. I’m a coach and I’m helping and I’ll get on the same play or page.”

Findings directly relevant to theorized New Learning Ecology

•Self-regulated learning• students attending to their learning

“They all tend to go to [Wikipedia] first. I think it’s the ease of search. I’ve tried to drill it in their heads for the last 12 weeks [to] always read it… if it seems overly critical or overly in favor of something, maybe look somewhere else to confirm. If they’re writing a research paper for me, I told them they could use Wikipedia one time and they had to confirm whatever they found somewhere else than Wikipedia in their paper. And I’ve tried to kind of drill it in their heads they have to kind of confirm it somewhere else, and not take it as God’s truth right there…I think they’ve learned that.”

• New forms of engagement in 1:1 environments

• 1:1 computing is practical, but not transformational

• Findings support Resnick’s (2010) notion of a Thinking Curriculum• Focused on intellectual goals• Teachers use emergent “macroscript”• Systems engineering approach and process

assessment

• Findings support Darling-Hammond, et al. (2009) contentions• PD Must be sensitive to ongoing practice• Focus on student learning and curriculum content;• Collaborative and aligned with school goals.

Conclusions and Directions

References

Anderson, L. W. and David R. Krathwohl, D. R., et al (Eds..) (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing:A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA.

Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecologies perspective. Human Development, 49, 193-224.

Brown, J.S. (1999 ). Learning, working, and playing in the digital age. Serendip. Retrieved April 20, 2010 from http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_edu/seelybrown

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., Orphanos, S. (2008). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council and The School Redesign Network. Retrieved April 20, 2010 from http://www.nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudy2009.pdf

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rsnick, L. (2010). Nested learning systems for the thinking curriculum. Educational Researcher 39(3), 183-197.