Slides from presentation by Iwona Czaplinski at the recent ASCILITE 2015 conference in Perth, Australia. Iwona reported on the effectiveness of an ecological approach to learning design in one of our large first year engineering mathematics subjects.

1. Presenter: Iwona Czaplinski i.czaplinski@qut.edu.au
Co-­author: Dann Mallet dg.mallet@qut.edu.au
1
Investigating the effectiveness of an
ecological approach to learning design in a
first year mathematics for engineering unit

2. First, some theoretical considerations
Ecological (holistic) approach to learning design
Holistic approach to learning design, the “design for
learning” (Goodyear and Carvalho, 2013 p. 49), the
pedagogical approach applied by people to facilitate
other people’s learning by “working with networks of
interacting digital and non-­digital entities” (Goodyear
and Carvalho, 2013, p. 49).
2

3. Networks (Goodyear, 2015)
From networked learning (NL) as an educational approach
to learning networks (LN) as complex objects of study
• Networked learning: learning with/through others;;
interaction through digital (e.g. online) and non-­digital
(e.g. physical/ material) entities (e.g. communication
channels/supports).
• Learning network: as a stable instance of NL (stable
enough to warrant/allow analysis).
• Not just the people but also the tools & other artefacts,
practices, tasks-­activities, roles, divisions of labour etc:
heterogeneous;; complex situated activity;; connections.
3

4. Selection criteria
MAB125 Foundations for Engineering Mathematics
1) Feedback through the University’s learning and
teaching evaluation tool (Pulse and Insight):
– Dichotomy between progress rates and teaching
satisfaction rates.
2) Student data generated by University systems (LA)
3) Unit profile: service unit, income generated:
– Greater than one million $/year.
4

5. Challenge areas
Pre-­intervention
• Large cohorts, diverse
abilities/level of
preparedness
• Teacher-­centred approach:
– Didactic lecturing
– Competitive (individualistic)
learning
– Limited collaboration
– Drill-­focused workshops
– Basic use of online tools
Post-­intervention (Intended change)
→ Turn it into an advantage
(collaborative learning)
• Student-­centred approach:
– Cohesive and coherent L&T
environment
– Encouragement of
collaborative and individual
construction of knowledge
– Interactive teaching(lectorials,
interactive workshops)
– Collaborative learning
5

6. Project objectives
Successful application for 2014 QUT L&T grant:
Specific objectives of the project:
1) To investigate ways of effectively using the online tools WeBWorK
online diagnostics, webinars, Echo360 lecture recording system
and GoSoapBox;;
2) To improve the delivery of face-­to-­face (f2f) lectures and tutorials
by designing, developing and implementing activities that explicitly
link f2f delivery mode with online tools, and
3) To improve 1st year student involvement by embedding and
promoting QUT Student Support programs in the unit;; developing a
model of close collaboration between academics teaching the unit
and QUT Student Success Program and STIMulate (learning
support).
6

7. Theoretical background of the project
• Learning design principles (probabilistic approach) within e-­learning
environments (Kirschner et al., 2004;; Jochems et al. 2004).
Figure 1: Two views on instructional design.
Strijbos, J.W., Martens, R.L., Jochems, W.M.G. (2004). Designing for interaction: Six steps to designing computer-­supported group-­based
learning. Computers & Education, 42(4), pp. 403-­424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.10.004
7

8. Theoretical background of the project
• Blended Learning design (Partridge et al., 2011;;
Saliba, et al. 2013),
• …in the context of
– mathematics courses (Stevenson & Zweier, 2011;;
Calderon, et al., 2012;; Carbonell, et al.,2013),
• …and in accordance with
– QUT Manual of Policies and Procedures (MOPP
C/6.3)
8

9. Redesign changes (over three years)
• Created “world of learning”, cohesive environment
encouraging student learning by improved learning
flow:
1) Redesigned LMS Blackboard site to provide multiple
means of representation (clickable image, interactive unit
map).
2) Blended learning approach: modular presentation of the
content, “blending” activities (e.g. “challenge questions”)
focus on continuity of and connectivity between designed
tasks), included “flipped learning” approach.
3) Improved collaboration with QUT Student Support
divisions:
-­ e.g. WeBWorK diagnostic providing usage data to
STIMulate;; STIMulate module on Blackboard site.
9

10. Figure 2: Conceptual design of the BB site (top of
the page)
10

11. Table 1: Learning and teaching approaches
11
Off-­campus environment On-­campus environment
In-­class activities Off-­class activities
Problem-­based activities
(Challenge questions)
Lectures (more
lectorial-­types)
STIMulate sessions
WeBWorK (practice test) Tutorials (solutions to
Challenge questions)
Consultations
Flipped classroom (videos) Workshops Peer learning
opportunities

12. Figure 3: Learning and teaching model
12
Y
X
Y = Progression
X = Weeks

13. Figure 4: Screenshot of the BB site
13

14. Analysis (Goodyear, 2015)
How do we analyse such a complex and multilayered
environment?
• Analysis needs to deal with single artefacts and
complex assemblages (ecologies of things;;
meshworks, etc.)
• Analysis needs to inform the creation of
representationsthat design teams (teachers,
designers, analysts) can use to make sense of a
complex system/network and commit to action to
improve it.
14

15. What evaluation lens?
• How do we evaluate the effectiveness of our
approach?
• How can we understand students’ behaviour?
• How can we interpret students’ behaviour?
• What changes should be made?
15

16. Evaluation lens: the notion of affordance
Affordance is a potential for an action created
within a particular environment.
Good (2007): a unit of analysis that should be
seen as being “nested” within the broader concept
of functional context.
frame of reference
functional context
affordance (opportunity for action)
16

17. Research questions of the current study
1) What were students’ perceptions of achieving unit
learning outcomes?
2) To what extent were students satisfied with:
a) the unit delivery?
b) the unit content?
c) the organisation of the unit (including additional support)?
Satisfaction = engagement? (Different levels/ types of
engagement, Entwistle, 2009)
17

18. Findings
The ecological approach to learning, based on probabilistic
learning design, overall proved successful in promoting
students’ engagement with learning not only through unit
content but also effective delivery fostering engagement.
But:
• There were differences in the ways students and
researchers perceived the opportunities for learning.
• These differences resulted from different frames of
reference and the ways functional context was set up to
make important affordances salient, assist students with
perceiving them and acting on them.
18

19. Research question 2c (N=39)
19
• This part of the re-­design was the most challenging. Although
salient to students (most students did indicate knowing the
location of the STIMulate tutors), it seems that the uptake of this
affordance was not fully successful.
• It seems that students ‘frame of
reference (student but at the same
time, for example an employee, a
parent, a sport person, etc.),
prevented students from taking up
these educational and social
affordances.
Out of classroom
environment, out
of classroom
learning

20. Anecdotal (but important) feedback
20
Embarras de choix effect
• Too rich environment (too much variety/ too
good).
Some students (prominently good, engaged, ambitious) felt
anxious because they wanted (and made effort) to act upon all
affordances by completing all activities provided to them.
• Frame of reference of being a “good student”
influenced their perceptions and impacted on
their engagement manifested by their behaviour
and emotional reaction.

21. Findings -­ continued
However, the continuous reflection allowed
researchers to:
1) Better understand students’ behaviour.
2) Identify areas for improvement taking holistic
(ecological) approach.
3) Consciously redesign tasks/ activities (i.e.
adjust their frames of reference, better
designing functional context).
4) Provided positive background for further study.
21

22. Two important lessons learnt
1. Innovation is beneficial to and appreciated by
everyone:
– Overall satisfaction with the design of the BB site
– Overall student satisfaction with the ways
technological tools were embedded.
– Overall satisfaction with new pedagogical approaches
tested: challenge questions, flipped learning.
– Help from STIMulate fully embedded (made almost
‘invisible’) in the unit.
22

23. Lessons learnt
2. Communication constitutes a crucial
component of success:
– Developing successful collaboration between the Unit
Coordinator, LD, and the teaching team.
– Better coordination of and collaboration with teaching
team.
– Better communication to students about the
importance and value of the new design of the unit.
23