Flexible Learning Itineraries in Digital Environments for Personalised Learning in Teacher Training
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/ried.25.2.32326Keywords:
educational technology, information and communication technologies, teacher education, individualised teaching, self-managementAbstract
The pedagogical strategy of flexible learning itineraries in digital environments aligns with current practices that focus on students’ agency to control their own learning. Flexible learning itineraries allow personalised learning while enhancing self-regulated learning skills such as setting aims and defining strategies. Paramount for successful strategies of flexible learning itineraries is the learning design which has to be defined with precision and responds to a detailed set of needs beyond access at anyplace or anytime. The main aim of flexible learning itineraries is to allow student choice so that they may construct their own pathway by selecting their options based on their own individual needs, motivations and prior knowledge. This research seeks to validate the prototype of a pedagogical strategy based on flexible learning design implemented in a subject of the Teacher Education programme at the University of the Balearic Islands. From a design-based research methodological approach, learning itineraries and sequences were created, and data was collected on student satisfaction via an online survey. Results show, on the one hand, the students' satisfaction with the experience and the pathways built, and on the other hand, in view of the diversity of choices made, that the pathways promoted the personalisation of learning, allowing the teaching-learning process to be adjusted to their personal characteristics. Conclusions suggest that the instructional design supports self-regulated learning strategies. In addition, conclusions reflect on the need to address digital current challenges from equitable and just approaches; and, also, on the value of the teacher's role as designer.
FULL ARTICLE:
https://revistas.uned.es/index.php/ried/article/view/32326/25358
Downloads
References
Agudelo, O., & Salinas, J. (2015). Flexible Learning Itineraries Based on Conceptual Maps. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 4(2), 70-76. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2015.7.130
Bali, M. [@Baha_Mali]. (2020, July 24). Among the things that frustrate me most about AI for learning that guides students' learning pathways is that this dictates their learning path rather than making time to nurture their agency and critical thinking in choosing their own pathway. + It limits serendipitous learning. [Tweet; thumbnail link to article]. Twitter. https://mobile.twitter.com/Bali_Maha/status/1286663675638677504
Benítez, M. G. (2010). El modelo de diseño instruccional Assure aplicado a la educación a distancia. Tlatemoani, Revista Académica de Investigación, 1, 1-12. https://bit.ly/3kAzNpQ
Buitrago, R. (2020). Realidad aumentada y los itinerarios personales de aprendizaje: una experiencia educativa para estudiantes con estilo cognitivo en la dimensión (DIC). In Premio a la Investigación e Innovación Educativa Experiencias 2019 (pp. 177-197). Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico, IDEP.
Buitrago, R, Salinas, J., & Boude, O. (2021). Designing and Representing Learning Itineraries: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal - IxD&A, 47, 94-122. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-047-005
Cabero, J. (2004). Las TIC como elementos para la flexibilización de los espacios educativos: retos y preocupaciones. Comunicación y pedagogía, 194, 13-19. https://bit.ly/35IjEII
Carifio J., & Perla R. (2008). Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Medical Education. 42, 1150-1152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03172.x
Castañeda, S., Peñalosa, E., & Austria, F. (2014). Efectos de perfiles agentivos y no agentivos sobre la formación teórica del psicólogo. Componentes de epistemología personal, cognitivos y autorregulatorios. Facultad de Psicología UNAM / CONACyT
Cobo, C. (2019). Acepto las Condiciones: Usos y abusos de las tecnologías digitales. Fundación Santillana. https://bit.ly/3ec6kjB
Coll, C. (2016). La personalización del aprendizaje escolar El qué, el por qué y el cómo de un reto insoslayable. In J. M. Vilalta (Dir.), Reptes de l’educació a Catalunya. Anuari 2015 (pp. 1-36). Fundació Bofill. https://bit.ly/2HJHUCc
Coll, C., & Monereo, C. (2008). Psicología de la educación virtual: aprender y enseñar con las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación. Morata.
de Benito, B., & Salinas, J. (2016). La investigación basada en diseño en Tecnología Educativa. Revista Interuniversitaria de Investigación en Tecnología Educativa, 0, 44-59. https://doi.org/10.6018/riite2016/260631
de Benito, B., Darder, A., Salinas, J., & Cañas, A. (2010). Construcción y validación de un itinerario de aprendizaje sobre diseño y producción de materiales didácticos multimedia. In J. Sánchez, A. J. Cañas, J. D. Novak (Eds.), Concept Maps: Making Learning Meaningful. Proceedings of the 4th Concept Mapping Conference CMC, Viña del Mar, Chile, 1, 62-66.
de Benito, B., Moreno-García, J., & Villatoro Moral, S. (2020). Entornos tecnológicos en el codiseño de itinerarios personalizados de aprendizaje en la enseñanza superior. Edutec. Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, 74, 72-93. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2020.74.1843
de Benito, B., Darder, A., & Salinas, J. (2012). Los itinerarios de aprendizaje mediante mapas conceptuales como recurso para la presentación del conocimiento. Edutec. Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, 39. https://doi.org/10.21556/edutec.2012.39.372
Díaz Barriga, Á. (2013). Secuencias de aprendizaje. ¿Un problema del enfoque de competencias o un reencuentro con perspectivas didácticas? Profesorado. Revista de Currículum y Formación de Profesorado, 17(3), 11-33. https://bit.ly/3iwKxEh
Dollinger, M., Lodge, J., & Coates, H. (2018). Co-creation in higher education: towards a conceptual model. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 28(2), 210-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2018.1466756
Elias, T. (2021). Mapping “A Situation of Open Education”: Using Collaborative Relational Mapping to Explore Motivations and Constraint Among Open Educators. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2021(1), p. 25. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.671
Gunn, C. (2011). Politics, Pedagogy, and Productivity as Drivers of Flexible Learning. In E. Burge, C. Campbell & T. Gibson (Ed.), Flexible pedagogy, flexible practice (pp. 67-78). Athabasca University Press. https://bit.ly/35FClwI
Houlden, S., & Veletsianos, G. (2019). A posthumanist critique of flexible online learning and its “anytime anyplace” claims. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12779
Jääskelä, P., Poikkeus, A. M., Vasalampi, K., Valleala, U. M., & Rasku-Puttonen, H. (2016). Assessing agency of university students: validation of the AUS Scale. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130693
Janssen, J., Berlanga, A. J., & Koper, R. (2011). Evaluation of the Learning Path Specification. Educational Technology & Society, 14(3), 218-230. https://bit.ly/3e9UTcs
Latrellis, O., Savvas, I. K., Kameas, A., & Fitsilis, P. (2020). Integrated learning pathways in higher education: A framework enhanced with machine learning and semantics. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 3109-3129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10105-7
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. Routledge.
Laurillard, D., Kennedy, E., Charlton, P., Wild, J., & Dimakopoulos, D. (2018). Using technology to develop teachers as designers of TEL: Evaluating the learning designer. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(6), 1044-1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12697
Lopes, P., & Lima, G. A. (2019). Estratégias de Organização, Representação e Gestão de Trilhas de Aprendizagem: uma revisão sistemática de literatura. Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação, 24(2) 165-195. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5344/3862
Marín, V. I., de Benito, B., & Darder, A. (2020). Technology-Enhanced Learning for Student Agency in Higher Education: a Systematic Literature Review. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal - IxD&A, 45, 15-49. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-045-001
Martínez, A. (2009). The instructional design in the distance education: An approach to the different models. Apertura, 9(10),104-119. https://bit.ly/3e9UTcs
Mengual-Andrés, S., López Belmonte, J., Fuentes Cabrera, A., & Pozo Sánchez, S. (2020). Structural model of influential extrinsic factors in flipped learning. Educación XX1, 23(1), 75-101. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.23840
McCombs, B. L. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: a phenomenological view. Springer-verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3618-4_3
McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: an ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science, 43, 181-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9337-2
Minguillón, J., Mor, E., Santanach, F., & Guàrdia Ortiz, L. (2005). Personalización del proceso de aprendizaje usando learning objects reutilizables. Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED), Monográfico IV, 1-14. https://bit.ly/3kFlOz9
OECD. (2019). OECD Skills Outlook 2019. https://doi.org/10.1787/df80bc12-en
Peña-López, I. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. OECD.
Perrotta, C., & Williamson, B. (2018). The social life of learning analytics: Cluster analysis and the ‘performance’ of algorithmic education. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1182927
Persico, D., Pozzi, F., & Goodyear, P. (2018). Teachers as designers of TEL interventions – Editorial of special issue. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49, 975-980. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12706
Plomp, T. (2013). Educational design research: An introduction. In T. Plomp & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research, Part A: An introduction (pp. 11-50). Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
Rajagopal, K., Van Schoors, R., Vanbecelaere, S., de Bie, L., Depaepe, F. (2020). Designing personalised learning support for K12 education: learner control, motivation and psychological ownership. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal - IxD&A, 45, 155-176. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-045-007
Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from the technology perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Ed.), Educational design research (pp. 86-109). Routledge
Salinas, J. (1999). Enseñanza flexible, aprendizaje abierto. Las redes como herramientas para la formación. Edutec-e. Revista electrónica de tecnología educativa, 10. https://bit.ly/3kEbxDe
Salinas, J. (2009). Nuevas modalidades de formación: entre los entornos virtuales institucionales y los personales de aprendizaje. In J. Tejada (Ed.), Estrategias de innovación en la formación para el trabajo (pp. 209-224). Tornapunta ediciones. https://bit.ly/3mzge1P
Salinas, J. (2013). Enseñanza flexible y aprendizaje abierto, fundamentos clave de los PLEs. In L. Castañeda & J. Adell (Eds.), Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje: claves para el ecosistema educativo en red (pp. 53-70). Marfil.
Salinas, J., & Agudelo O. (2016). Itinerarios Flexibles de Aprendizaje y Mapas Conceptuales: un Abanico de Posibilidades para todos los Niveles Educativos. In A. J. Cañas, P. Reiska, J. D. Novak (Eds.), Innovating with Concept Mapping. Proc. Of the Seventh Int. Conference on Concept Mapping (Vol 2), Tallinn University.
Salinas, J., & de-Benito, B. (2020). Construction of personalized learning pathways through mixed methods. Comunicar: Revista Científica de Comunicación y Educación, 28(65). https://doi.org/10.3916/C65-2020-03
Salinas-Ibáñez, J., de Benito-Crosetti, B., Moreno-García, J., & Lizana Carrió, A. (2022). Nuevos diseños y formas organizativas flexibles en educación superior [New flexible designs and modes of organisation in higher education]. Pixel-Bit.Revista de Medios y Educación, 63, 65-91. https://doi.org/10.12795/pixelbit.91739
UNESCO (2019). Recommendation on Open Educational Resources (OER). http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=49556&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Welch Bacon, C. E., & Gaither, K. (2020). Personalized Learning Pathways: Using Technology to Promote Learning Beyond the Classroom. New directions for teaching and learning, 162, 91-102. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20394
Willems, J. (2011). Students’ Perceptions: Flexing Pedagogy and Practice. In E. Burge, C. Campbell and T. Gibson (Ed.), Flexible pedagogy, flexible practice (pp. 29-40). Athabasca University Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A Social Cognitive View of Self-Regulated Academic Learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 329-339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Zimmerman, B. J., & Moylan, A. R. (2009). Self-regulation: Where metacognition and motivation intersect. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of Metacognition in Education (pp. 299- 315). Routledge.
