As a learner, I’ve realised NGL provides learning in an autonomous, personalised multi-modal manner. Though that learning cannot be achieved effectively without a degree of 21st Century literacy and the ability to self-regulate.
My task was to acquire an understanding of HTML coding through NGL. In truth, the depth of learning I obtained wasn’t as extensive as it could have been, however what I learned was well-absorbed, beneficial to my job and remarkably suited to my learning style. I can put this result down to my capability to search for, source and sift through the information available in the digi-sphere, and do it in an autonomous manner. This capacity represents self-regulated learning as well as digital, information and multimedia literacy, which are 21st Century literacies fundamental to learning effectively in NGL.
In my role as an experiential designer I write, develop and create digital experiential learning courses. After my storyboarding they are graphically designed and technologically developed using HTML5. Time and time again our clients request insignificant modifications to text, imagery and visual placement, which takes time away from the busy schedules our developers have. As such, my theory was to acquire my own skills, so that I could help make changes, allowing them to keep building my programs. Altruistic!
Using a website called Lynda.com, I enrolled in a series of webinars that communicated the basics of HTML through video clips, narratives, practice files and target artefacts. Fortunately at work we have a suite of digital coding programs that I could use, however at home this was not the case.
Applying the knowledge of NGL I had gathered from this unit, I had to locate trial, download and use a range of open source tools to continue my learning. By visiting some forums and blogs I uncovered some artefacts that enabled me to complete more of my work at home.
I got to the first checkpoint in the course then became too busy writing blog pieces for other elements that I didn’t progress. However, I now understand the basics and am able to communicate more clearly with our developers. This is a win. Although, I don’t think it would have been as simple had I not possessed a degree of 21st Century literacy already.
My task was to acquire an understanding of HTML coding through NGL. In truth, the depth of learning I obtained wasn’t as extensive as it could have been, however what I learned was well-absorbed, beneficial to my job and remarkably suited to my learning style. I can put this result down to my capability to search for, source and sift through the information available in the digi-sphere, and do it in an autonomous manner. This capacity represents self-regulated learning as well as digital, information and multimedia literacy, which are 21st Century literacies fundamental to learning effectively in NGL.
In my role as an experiential designer I write, develop and create digital experiential learning courses. After my storyboarding they are graphically designed and technologically developed using HTML5. Time and time again our clients request insignificant modifications to text, imagery and visual placement, which takes time away from the busy schedules our developers have. As such, my theory was to acquire my own skills, so that I could help make changes, allowing them to keep building my programs. Altruistic!
Using a website called Lynda.com, I enrolled in a series of webinars that communicated the basics of HTML through video clips, narratives, practice files and target artefacts. Fortunately at work we have a suite of digital coding programs that I could use, however at home this was not the case.
Applying the knowledge of NGL I had gathered from this unit, I had to locate trial, download and use a range of open source tools to continue my learning. By visiting some forums and blogs I uncovered some artefacts that enabled me to complete more of my work at home.
I got to the first checkpoint in the course then became too busy writing blog pieces for other elements that I didn’t progress. However, I now understand the basics and am able to communicate more clearly with our developers. This is a win. Although, I don’t think it would have been as simple had I not possessed a degree of 21st Century literacy already.
21st Century literacy
Twenty-first century learning skills demand that learners can use the Internet. No questions.
Twenty-first century learning skills demand that learners can use the Internet. No questions.
The challenge facing learners however, is trying to comprehend both the sheer volume of information available online, and the many ways that it is presented (Greene, Sung &Copeland 2014). According to Weiner (2010), this is information literacy, which involves sourcing, analyzing and evaluating information with an awareness of how it is inextricably linked to power and persuasion. Essentially, information literate humans are able to find deep, detailed information amongst a sea of multimodal, digital information sources, irrespective of the complexity. However, this requires the ability to use these technological artefacts.
Digital literacy requires more than simple recognition of these technological sources of information, but an integrated understanding of their representations (Gee, 2007). Murray and Perez (2014) conclude that digital literacy is reliant on Internet technology, requires the comprehension of computer-based, multimodal information and should include:
• skills and knowledge to access and use multiple hardware devices and software applications;
• an adeptness to understand and critically analyse digital content and applications; and
• the ability to create with digital multimedia.
The last point of which is a 21st Century literacy itself.
Rodrigues and Bidarra (2014) identify multimedia literacy as the ability to extract meaning from multiple forms of media that stimulate our aural and visual senses. Mayer (2005) asserts that understanding multimedia literacy is based on three assumptions:
Digital literacy requires more than simple recognition of these technological sources of information, but an integrated understanding of their representations (Gee, 2007). Murray and Perez (2014) conclude that digital literacy is reliant on Internet technology, requires the comprehension of computer-based, multimodal information and should include:
• skills and knowledge to access and use multiple hardware devices and software applications;
• an adeptness to understand and critically analyse digital content and applications; and
• the ability to create with digital multimedia.
The last point of which is a 21st Century literacy itself.
Rodrigues and Bidarra (2014) identify multimedia literacy as the ability to extract meaning from multiple forms of media that stimulate our aural and visual senses. Mayer (2005) asserts that understanding multimedia literacy is based on three assumptions:
- Humans have two separate channels for processing information: auditory and visual, (dual coding theory).
- Each channel has a limited capacity.
- Learning is an active process of filtering, selecting, organising and integrating information based on prior knowledge.
Self-regulated learning
Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) posits learners as constructors of their own knowledge who loosely follow a personalised set of procedures before, during, and after learning (Pintrich, 2000). These procedures may involve goal-setting and defining tasks, creating strategies to achieve goals, as well as monitoring the learning progress, and even learning to forget.
Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) posits learners as constructors of their own knowledge who loosely follow a personalised set of procedures before, during, and after learning (Pintrich, 2000). These procedures may involve goal-setting and defining tasks, creating strategies to achieve goals, as well as monitoring the learning progress, and even learning to forget.
If learners determine their progress is insufficient, the personalised nature of SRL allows change to strategies, processes and resources to make the results more beneficial (Bjork, Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013). Ideally, after completion learners reflect upon and modify their processes so future tasks can be accomplished more effectively (Zimmerman & Labuhn, 2012).
The major contributing factors to SRL are motivation and self-belief. Possessing high levels of both enables learners to engage more autonomously in the key aspects of SRL, and make the necessary changes when required, independently, as opposed to waiting for instructions (Greene & Azevedo, 2007; Pintrich, 2000 and Winne & Hadwin, 2008).
Independent learning skills have become increasingly relevant for when learners are sourcing information across multiple knowledge domains (Alexander, Dinsmore, Parkinson, & Winters, 2011). Subsequently, SRL skills are essential for technological or digital literacy, where vast amounts of information regarding complex topics are presented in multiple forms (Greene & Azevedo, 2007; Shapiro & Niederhauser, 2004). For without the ability to apply self-reliant thinking in environments of cognitive chaos, discomfort may increase, detracting from genuine learning.
Anxiety
Operating in a self-regulated manner leaves the door open for less controlled fits of anxiety, which is why 21st century literacies are so important. The main effects of worry (and, more generally, of anxiety) are on the central executive system, which controls the flow of information to and from the brain (Eysenck, Santos, Derekshan & Calvo 2007). Eysenck et al (2007) note studies have found that anxiety affects performance and efficiency in a greater manner for tasks imposing substantial demands on the processing and storage of information (especially in the central executive). This is highly relevant to SRL, as one is responsible for ones own learning process. Essentially, overcrowding of cognital capacity inhibits auxiliary processing activities, leaving learners unable to adapt, recall or categorise information appropriately (Rapee, 1993). As such, to overcome the detrimental effects of anxiety and produce effective SRL understanding how to manage ones knowledge resources becomes significant.
PKM
Thus, the final piece in the SRL puzzle is personal knowledge management. According to Wright (2005), if learners are aware of their PKM process, their knowledge acquisition and learning can be enhanced. Sallis & Jones (2002) define knowledge as ‘information in use’, which is constructed using an accumulation of facts, procedural rules or heuristics through daily experience and study. This explanation requires the perception of knowledge as a thing that can be collected, pieced together and shared, but which is also subjective. Therefore, it makes sense that knowledge management refers to placing individual structure on sources of collective information, used in a personally relevant manner.
Harold Jarche offers a method of applying this through his Seek, Sense, Share (PKM) framework. Seeking, he claims, is finding things out and keeping up to date. Sensing is how information is personalised and used. Sharing includes exchanging resources, ideas and experiences with our networks. The other approach for PKM is metacognitive and relates to how we compute varying modalities. Sheridan (2008) indicates PKM enables us to link technology tools with a set of information skills, thus providing an intentionality that moves the focus from the technology more directly to the information. Therefore, PKM is a means of increasing our 21st century literacy, thus heightening our SRL.
Although I didn’t progress as far as I would have liked in the HTML5 coding adventure I was able to see the benefits of NGL from a learner’s perspective. I am fortunate in that I have a solid level of 21st Century literacy and prefer SRL, and with those capabilities came a more strategic approach to NGL. Consequently, participation as a learner in an NGL environment enabled me to see the benefits of appropriate levels of these skillsets. My concern now would be the design of effective NGL courses that both enhance and facilitate these skills, whilst also developing comfort using NGL itself. These queries are covered in my essay about the future of NGL as a Teacher.
The major contributing factors to SRL are motivation and self-belief. Possessing high levels of both enables learners to engage more autonomously in the key aspects of SRL, and make the necessary changes when required, independently, as opposed to waiting for instructions (Greene & Azevedo, 2007; Pintrich, 2000 and Winne & Hadwin, 2008).
Independent learning skills have become increasingly relevant for when learners are sourcing information across multiple knowledge domains (Alexander, Dinsmore, Parkinson, & Winters, 2011). Subsequently, SRL skills are essential for technological or digital literacy, where vast amounts of information regarding complex topics are presented in multiple forms (Greene & Azevedo, 2007; Shapiro & Niederhauser, 2004). For without the ability to apply self-reliant thinking in environments of cognitive chaos, discomfort may increase, detracting from genuine learning.
Anxiety
Operating in a self-regulated manner leaves the door open for less controlled fits of anxiety, which is why 21st century literacies are so important. The main effects of worry (and, more generally, of anxiety) are on the central executive system, which controls the flow of information to and from the brain (Eysenck, Santos, Derekshan & Calvo 2007). Eysenck et al (2007) note studies have found that anxiety affects performance and efficiency in a greater manner for tasks imposing substantial demands on the processing and storage of information (especially in the central executive). This is highly relevant to SRL, as one is responsible for ones own learning process. Essentially, overcrowding of cognital capacity inhibits auxiliary processing activities, leaving learners unable to adapt, recall or categorise information appropriately (Rapee, 1993). As such, to overcome the detrimental effects of anxiety and produce effective SRL understanding how to manage ones knowledge resources becomes significant.
PKM
Thus, the final piece in the SRL puzzle is personal knowledge management. According to Wright (2005), if learners are aware of their PKM process, their knowledge acquisition and learning can be enhanced. Sallis & Jones (2002) define knowledge as ‘information in use’, which is constructed using an accumulation of facts, procedural rules or heuristics through daily experience and study. This explanation requires the perception of knowledge as a thing that can be collected, pieced together and shared, but which is also subjective. Therefore, it makes sense that knowledge management refers to placing individual structure on sources of collective information, used in a personally relevant manner.
Harold Jarche offers a method of applying this through his Seek, Sense, Share (PKM) framework. Seeking, he claims, is finding things out and keeping up to date. Sensing is how information is personalised and used. Sharing includes exchanging resources, ideas and experiences with our networks. The other approach for PKM is metacognitive and relates to how we compute varying modalities. Sheridan (2008) indicates PKM enables us to link technology tools with a set of information skills, thus providing an intentionality that moves the focus from the technology more directly to the information. Therefore, PKM is a means of increasing our 21st century literacy, thus heightening our SRL.
Although I didn’t progress as far as I would have liked in the HTML5 coding adventure I was able to see the benefits of NGL from a learner’s perspective. I am fortunate in that I have a solid level of 21st Century literacy and prefer SRL, and with those capabilities came a more strategic approach to NGL. Consequently, participation as a learner in an NGL environment enabled me to see the benefits of appropriate levels of these skillsets. My concern now would be the design of effective NGL courses that both enhance and facilitate these skills, whilst also developing comfort using NGL itself. These queries are covered in my essay about the future of NGL as a Teacher.
References
Alexander, P. A., Dinsmore, D., Parkinson, M., & Winters, F. I. (2011). The interplay of academic domains and self-regulated learning. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York: Routledge.
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444.
Bull, G., & Anstey, M. (2007). What’s so different about multiliteracies. CLJ, 5.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336.
Gee, J. P. (2007). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses: Hoboken : Taylor & Francis, 2007.
Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Adolescents’ use of self-regulatory processes and their relation to qualitative mental model shifts while using hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36, 125–148
Greene, J. A., Seung, B. Y., & Copeland, D. Z. (2014). Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers & education, 76, 55-69.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning: Cambridge University Press.
Murray, M. C., & Pérez, J. (2014). Unravelling the digital literacy paradox: How higher education fails at the fourth literacy. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 11, 85-100. Retreived from http://iisit.org/Vol11/IISITv11p085-100Murray0507.pdf
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. Academic Press.
Rapee, R. M. (1993). The utilization of working memory by worry. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 617–620.
Rodrigues, P., & Bidarra, J. (2014). Transmedia storytelling and the creation of a converging space of educational practices. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. ISSN: 1863-0383
Sallis, E., & Jones, G. (2002). Knowledge Management in Education: Enhancing Learning and Education. London: Kogen Page Ltd
Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2, 605-620.
Sheridan, W. (2008), How to Think like a knowledge worker, United Nations Public Administration Network. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/unpan/unpan031277.pdf
Weiner, S. A. (2010). Information Literacy and the Workforce. Education Libraries 34 (2) 7-14.
Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. Schunk, & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wright, K. (2005) Personal knowledge management: supporting individual knowledge worker performance, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, (2005) 3, 156–165.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Labuhn, L. D. (2012). Self-regulation of learning: process approaches to personal development. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Educational Psychology Handbook: Vol. 1 theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 399–426). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Alexander, P. A., Dinsmore, D., Parkinson, M., & Winters, F. I. (2011). The interplay of academic domains and self-regulated learning. Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. New York: Routledge.
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444.
Bull, G., & Anstey, M. (2007). What’s so different about multiliteracies. CLJ, 5.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336.
Gee, J. P. (2007). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses: Hoboken : Taylor & Francis, 2007.
Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Adolescents’ use of self-regulatory processes and their relation to qualitative mental model shifts while using hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36, 125–148
Greene, J. A., Seung, B. Y., & Copeland, D. Z. (2014). Measuring critical components of digital literacy and their relationships with learning. Computers & education, 76, 55-69.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning: Cambridge University Press.
Murray, M. C., & Pérez, J. (2014). Unravelling the digital literacy paradox: How higher education fails at the fourth literacy. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 11, 85-100. Retreived from http://iisit.org/Vol11/IISITv11p085-100Murray0507.pdf
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. Academic Press.
Rapee, R. M. (1993). The utilization of working memory by worry. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 617–620.
Rodrigues, P., & Bidarra, J. (2014). Transmedia storytelling and the creation of a converging space of educational practices. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning. ISSN: 1863-0383
Sallis, E., & Jones, G. (2002). Knowledge Management in Education: Enhancing Learning and Education. London: Kogen Page Ltd
Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 2, 605-620.
Sheridan, W. (2008), How to Think like a knowledge worker, United Nations Public Administration Network. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/unpan/unpan031277.pdf
Weiner, S. A. (2010). Information Literacy and the Workforce. Education Libraries 34 (2) 7-14.
Winne, P., & Hadwin, A. (2008). The weave of motivation and self-regulated learning. In D. Schunk, & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 297–314). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wright, K. (2005) Personal knowledge management: supporting individual knowledge worker performance, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, (2005) 3, 156–165.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Labuhn, L. D. (2012). Self-regulation of learning: process approaches to personal development. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Educational Psychology Handbook: Vol. 1 theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 399–426). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.