Current Research on Media Education:From School Children to Senior Citizens

Heli RuokamoProfessor, Faculty of Education (FoE)Director, Centre for Media Pedagogy (CMP)University of Lapland (UoL), FINLAND

Rethinking Media Education22 Oct 2015, Milano Catholic University, Italy

Background

BackgroundCentre for Media Pedagogy (CMP)

Established at the beginning of 2001, in order to support teaching, research and development in the areas of media education and the educational use of ICTs

Part of the FoE at the beginning of 2003, officially established 2005

Coordinates and participates:- teaching, - research and - development projects- of the media education and - the educational use of the information andcommunication technologies (ICTs)

Approx. 10 staff members

BackgroundAreas of multidisciplinary research:

New pedagogical models and pedagogically appropriate use of ICT in teaching and learning

Online and mobile learning, simulations and virtual reality, digital videos, playful learning environments, use of ICT in all areas of life by people of different ages living in rural areas

Design, implementation and evaluation of the processes

Covers 3 themes of ME curriculum:1. Media in teaching and learning2. Median in society3. Media and psychosocial wellbeing

Pedagogical Models by CMP

The socio-constructivist and socio-cultural perspectives (e.g. Vygotsky, 1978; Säljö, 1999; 2004; 2005; Wells & Claxton, 2002)

– Learning is not related only to academic achievements, but also to all actions that take into account the person as a whole – body, mind and spirit – and the role of cultural tools and artifacts

– Learning is seen as a tool-dependent and metaphorical concept (Säljö 2005; 2006), and is defined through the concept of knowledge co-creation (Kangas et al. 2006), which

• refers to knowledge co-construction with an assumption that learning no longer repeats what is already known, but creates something new (Säljö 2006)

Learning Theorethical Framework

Pedagogical Models Development of pedagogical models (cf. Joyce & Weil, 1980) is still

crucial

- teachers are not yet fully aware of how to use technology in pedagogically appropriate ways

- they need functional examples

An effective pedagogical model will make teachers aware of the different means available to them

- it will ensure that students benefit from a more meaningful learning experience

Teaching ModelCan be defined as:

”a plan or pattern that can be used to shape curriculums (long-term courses of studies),

to design instructional materials, and

to guide instruction in the classroom and other settings”

(Joyce & Weil 1980, 1)

Pedagogical Models of purposive studying and meaningful learning

that teachers, tutors and curriculum designers and students can apply in:

- designing, teaching, tutoring, evaluating and - learning processes (Tissari, Vahtivuori-Hänninen,

Vaattovaara, Ruokamo & Tella 2005)

Pedagogical Models in Practice The value of the pedagogical models comes to the fore

above all in practice

Three different ways of using the pedagogical models: 1. planning of instruction on the basis of the model 2. combination of models 3. varied use of the models depending on the situation

They can be combined and should in fact be adapted to fit in with the teachers’ own pedagogical thinking

Pedagogical Models Developed by CMP

Research Projects by CMP VIP (2013-2014) TEKES, (SAVI; AoF, TEKES, NSF) MediPro (2012-2014); ERDF, TEKES, municipalities and companies) Adiona (2012-2014; TraFi) Doctoral Programme for Multidisciplinary Research on Learning Environments (2002-

05, 2006-09, 2010-2013; Academy of Finland and Ministry of Education) AC in Net (2012-2013; ESF) TravEd (2010-2012; ERDF, TEKES, municipalities and companies) MediPeda (2007-08-10; ERDF, TEKES, municipalities and companies) InnoPlay (2007-08-10; Tekes, municipalities and companies) GloVed (2008-2009; Centennial Foundation of the Finnish Technology Industries) MobIT (2007-09; Ministry of Education) Benedict (2006-07; Ministry for foreign affairs of Finland) PlayIT (2006; TEKES) Web-Seal (2006; Academy of Finland) LEVIKE (2004-07; ESF) Let´s Play (2003-06; ESF, State Provincial Office of Lapland and Lappset Group Ltd.) JIBS Lapland (2003-04; EU) MOMENTS (2002-05; Academy of Finland, TEKES and companies) HelLa (2001-03; Ministry of Education)

Integrated model of network-based education MOMENTS Metamodel (MM) Network-oriented study with simulations (NOSS) model Innovation Education in Virtual Reality (InnoEd VR) model TML (Teaching and Meaningful Learning) model TPL (Tutoring, playing and learning) model CCLP (Co-Creative Learning Processes) model RC (Reciprocal Creativity) model PLP (Playful learning process) model CPL (Creative and Playful Learning) model GloVEd model FTL (Facilitating, Training and Learning) model The Model for Enhanced Teaching and Meaningful e-Learning (ETMeL) The Model for Meaningful Work-based Mobile Learning (MWBML) Introduction, Simulation, Scenario, Debriefing (ISSD) Model

Pedagogical Models by CMP

Design-Based Research (DBR) Involves developing, testing, investigating, and refining learning environment

designs and theoretical constructs as well as illustrating and predicting how learning occurs (Barab & Squire, 2004; Design-based research collective 2003).

Process proceeds through iterative cycles of design and implementation

Leads to “contextually-sensitive design principles and theories” (Wang & Hannafin 2005, 7).

It aims to improve simultaneously, both theory and local practices.

implementation

designanalysis

Figure 1. Integrated model of network-based education. Teaching-Studying and Learning processes (cf. Ruokamo et al. 2002; Vahtivuori et al. 2002; 2003).

Figure 2. MOMENTS Metamodel (MM). Descriptors of the Teaching-Studying-Learning process (Ruokamo & Tella 2005).

Figure 3. Teaching and Meaningful Learning (TML) model (Hakkarainen 2007; 2009; Hakkarainen, Saarelainen & Ruokamo 2009)

Figure 4. The model for ETMeL (Ruokamo, Hakkarainen & Eriksson 2012)

• reflection and evaluation learning process

• what, how and why questions

• sports and games

• play

• physicality

• reflection, improvement

• fact-based/ fiction-based content creation

• exploration and validation of ideas

• knowledge base

• orientation to the process

• various methods

The role of the teacher:

Co-ordinatorTutor

Co-creatorSupporter

Guide FacilitatorPromoterInstructor

Knowledge co-creation: small group and classroom levels

The nature of learning

PlayfulActive

Co-CreativeParticipative

EmotionalNarrative

Transformative

Heuristic

Orientation

Co-Creation Game Play Elaboration

Figure 5. Creative and Playful Learning Model (CPL) (cf. Kangas 2009; 2010a, c; Randolph, Kangas, Ruokamo & Hyvönen 2013)

Figure 6. Global Virtual Education (GloVEd) model (Keskitalo, Pyykkö & Ruokamo 2011)

1. INTRODUCTIONPresentation of a course topic as well asother important concepts.

Explanation of how course is organised (pedagogical models and methods).

2. SIMULATOR BRIEFINGIntroduction of a scenario, case, problem etc.Introduction of goals, roles, rules, procedures, and decisions. Setting the individual goals. Participants familiarise themselves with the environment, the case and their roles.

4. DEBRIEFINGComprehensive evaluation, reflection and critical analysis of the FTL process, the knowledge and the learning environment.Providing individual guidance and feedback.

3. SCENARIOSParticipating in simulations.

Practising of skills and knowledge.

Training

ExperientialExperimentalEMOTIONALSocio-constructiveCollaborativeActiveResponsibleReflectiveCRITICALCompetence-basedContextualGOAL-ORIENTEDSelf-directedINDIVIDUAL

Competenciesset for thehealthcarepersonnel

FacilitatingChoosing the resources and scenario based on students` characteristics, characteristics of meaning learning and competencies.Facilitate and guide students` meaningful learning.

Learning

VR and simulation-based learning environment (context)

Figure 7. Redesigned pedagogical model for VR and simulation-based learning environment (Keskitalo, Ruokamo & Väisänen 2010).

Figure 8. Refined pedagogical model for MWBML in tourism education (Vuojärvi, Eriksson & Ruokamo 2012)

TEACHING AND TUTORING WORK-BASED MOBILE LEARNING

TEACHER OR TECHNICAL SUPPORT STAFFTechnical training and support

TEACHERDesign and organization of apprenticeship period, quality controlSupport and guidance for students

TOURISM COMPANIESTutoring learningChallenging studentsProviding learning environment

PROCESS CHARACTERISTICS1) Active and self-directed2) Constructive 3) Individual and goal-oriented4) Collaborative and conversational5) Contextual, situated and multiple-perspective oriented6) Experiential and authentic7) Reflective and critical8) Creative9) Emotionally involving

EXPECTED OUTCOMES1) Domain-specific knowledge and skills 2) Transferable, generic knowledge and skills

Figure 9. Introduction, Simulation, Scenario, Debriefing (ISSD) Model (cf. Poikela, Ruokamo & Keskitalo 2014; Poikela, Ruokamo Teräs )

Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned Developed pedagogical models need to be empirically tested and future

developed during long term (at least 10 weeks) teaching experiments

Enough time should be quaranteed to be able to adopt the pedagogical model, new methods and tools to be used

Teachers’ and students’ motivation and engagement are critical factors

Teachers’ and students’ pedagogical and technical knowledge and skills -- in addition to domain specific knowledge and skills – should be taken into account

Both pedagogical and technological solutions should be made from teachers’ and students’ perspective so that they see them appropriate for them and for spesific learning purposes

Lessons Learned They should also see the importance to learn some generic knowledge and

skills that could be transferred for future learning and practises

Reflection and evaluation of the processes should be paid more attention to

Technical problems are always critical

Grouping of meaningful learning characteristics into wider themes should be done via statistical and content analyses

In addition to students’ processes and outcomes learning results should also be measured – What and how well they actually learn?

At the moment meaningful mobile learning questionnaire is under construction to be used in international high school contexts

Future Plans Meaningful mobile learning survey -> International data collection

for university students

Model of the models to be published

Commercializing of the models Trademarks

Educational export business

Contact Information

Thank You for Your Attention!

Centre for Media Pedagogy (CMP)http://www.ulapland.fi/CMP

http://www.facebook.com/#!/CefMPFaculty of Education (FoE)University of Lapland (UoL)

http://www.facebook.com/#!/medu.ulapland

P.O.Box 122, FI-96101 Rovaniemi, FINLANDTel. + 358 16 341 341

Email: Firstname.Lastname@ulapland.fi

Hakkarainen, P., Saarelainen, T. & Ruokamo, H. 2009. Assessing Teaching and Students’ Meaningful Learning Processes in an E-Learning Course. In C. Spratt & P. Lajbcygier (Eds.) E-Learning Technologies and Evidence-Based Assessment Approaches. IGI Global, 20–36.

Keskitalo, T., Pyykkö, E., & Ruokamo, H. 2011. Exploring the Meaningful Learning of Students in Second Life. Educational Technology and Society, 14(1), 16–26. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/14_1/3.pdf

Keskitalo, T., Ruokamo, H. & Väisänen, O. 2010. How does the facilitating, training and learning model support characteristics of meaningful learning in a simulation-based learning environment from facilitators` and students` perspectives? In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010 (pp. 1736–1746). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. http://www.editlib.org/noaccess/34874/

References

Poikela, P., & Ruokamo, H. & Teräs, M. 2015. Comparison of meaningful learning characteristics in simulated nursing practice after traditional versus computer-based simulation method: A qualitative videography study. Nurse Education Today, 35(2015), 373–382.

Randolph, J., Kangas, M., Ruokamo, H., & Hyvönen, P. 2013. Creative and playful learning on technology-enriched playgrounds: an international investigation. Interactive Learning Environments. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2013.860902

Ruokamo, H. & Tella, S. 2005. Multidisciplinary Network-Based Mobile Education (NBME) and Teaching–Studying–Learning (TSL) Processes: The MOMENTS Integrated Metamodel. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. June 26–July 2, 2005. Montréal, Canada. CD-ROM. Electronic Version of Papers Presented at ED-MEDIA 2005 Conference, 324–329.

References

Ruokamo, H., Hakkarainen, P. & Eriksson, M. 2012. Designing a Model for Enhanced Teaching and Meaningful E-Learning. In A. D. Olofsson & J. O. Lindberg (Eds.) Informed Design of Educational Technologies in Higher Education: Enhanced Learning and Teaching (pp. 375–392). IGI Global.

Tissari, V., Vahtivuori-Hänninen, S., Vaattovaara, V., Ruokamo, H. & Tella, S. 2005. Applying Pedagogical Models in Network-Based Education: Research Findings from the Finnish HelLa Project Case Studies. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2005: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. June 26–July 2, 2005. Montréal, Canada. CD-ROM. Electronic Version of Papers Presented at ED-MEDIA 2005 Conference, 656–662.

Vuojärvi, H., Eriksson, M. & Ruokamo, H. 2012. Designing Pedagogical Models for Tourism Education: Focus on Work-Based Mobile Learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 4(3), 53–67. Available online: http://www.igi-global.com/article/designing-pedagogical-models-tourism-education/69815

References