Figure 1: Text and media describing the people and issues of the Arctic
| Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2010, 26(2), 280-296. |
AJET 26 |
Long-term student experiences in a hybrid, open-ended and problem based Adventure Learning program
George Veletsianos
University of Texas at Austin
Aaron Doering
University of Minnesota
In this paper we investigate the experiences of elementary school children over a two-year period during which they engaged with a hybrid Adventure Learning program. In addition to delineating Adventure Learning experiences, we report on educational technology implementations in ecologically valid and complex environments, while drawing inferences on the design of sustainable and successful innovations. Our research indicates that the Adventure Learning experience over the two-year period was dynamic, participatory, engaging, collaborative, and social. Students eagerly became part of the experience both inside and outside of the classroom, and it quickly became apparent that they saw themselves as valued members of the unfolding storyline that mediated their learning. Our recommendations for future research and practice include a call to evaluate "authenticity," focus on the learner experience and narrative, and consider the interplay between pedagogy, technology, and design.
The learner's journey through a lesson, week, or semester (whether online or face to face) is often complex and multi-faceted (c.f. Parrish, 2008). What is paramount in this experience is our understanding of why and how a learning experience was effective, valuable, interesting, engaging, and possibly transformational (Wilson, Parrish & Veletsianos, 2008). This journey, the experience of learning, is the focus of this paper. Specifically, we investigate the experiences of elementary school children over a two-year period during which they engaged with a hybrid Adventure Learning program. Our purpose is multifold:
OELEs can exist face to face, online, or in hybrid modes. For instance, in face to face modes, a teacher can provide different colour light bulbs and pieces of coloured glass to her science classroom for students to explore the properties of light and colour; in online learning settings, a teacher can engage his students in a similar exercise by designing an interactive exercise within a virtual world; finally, in a hybrid education mode, a teacher can provide her students with online resources that scaffold their real life experiments towards understanding the properties of colour (e.g., Valanides & Angeli, 2008).
While the relationship between adventure learning, problem based learning, and open-ended learning environments is implicit in the description of adventure learning presented above, an explicit presentation of the features they share may enable the reader to better understand this approach. At the very basic level, adventure learning and PBL are approaches based on student inquiry, grounded on the understanding that learning is a process whose end result may vary across students. In addition, curricular and instructional activities are primarily situated and authentic and need not be based on a single correct answer. Adventure learning requires the use of adventure based education, technology, and collaboration. While PBL may encompass these features, it does not necessarily require them and can be implemented without them. Finally, adventure learning and PBL share the notion of a narrative or storyline: in PBL the problem to be solved is presented in the context of a story, while in adventure learning the learners are following a storyline through which real world problems are presented.
The adventure learning approach is also frequently mediated by an online learning environment, which is a variant of open-ended learning environments. Specifically, adventure learning environments are OELEs in the sense that they provide flexible spaces for student exploration, experimentation, and engagement with topics of interest. While support may be provided in the adventure learning environment (e.g., weekly tasks, curricular activities, and scheduled chat sessions), the environment is neither directed nor deterministic, making it appropriate for hosting activities that are student oriented, such as those arising from the PBL approach. For instance, students can listen to the explorers' audio updates, use their location coordinates to map their route, and send encouragement notes to the expedition team.
Adventure learning research with respect to the learner experience has mostly focused on elementary and middle school children. One of the persistent findings in the literature has been the engaging nature of the adventure learning approach: learners enjoy participating in adventure learning experiences, exhibit behavioral changes as a result of participating in such projects, and discuss their experiences outside of their classroom, often leading their parents to request from teachers continued use of the adventure learning curriculum (Doering & Veletsianos, 2008a, 2008b).
Additionally, project participants consistently note that they enjoy interacting and collaborating with the explorers' team and other students, teachers, and experts across the world (Doering, 2007; Doering & Veletsianos, 2008a). While it is possible for adventure learning curricula to be completed within classrooms in an individualistic basis, the majority of the classrooms researched have actively sought to implement adventure learning projects on a collaborative basis. Collaborative features utilised included classroom participation in weekly chats, classroom postings on collaborative online spaces, sharing of student artefacts, and discussions around online student postings.
Finally, adventure learning projects appear to have yielded transformational learning outcomes (Doering & Veletsianos, 2008b). For instance, students have not only learned content (e.g., climate change, sustainability, flora, fauna), but have also taken steps to make a difference outside their classrooms by encouraging and educating others to make behavioural changes consistent with what they learned (e.g., by convincing their parents to drive less to reduce their environmental footprint). While these outcomes may indicate that the adventure learning approach has been successful, the long-term nature of these projects necessitates extended research over long-term periods of time to understand the temporal dimensions of the learning experience.
Participants used the GoNorth! Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 2006 and GoNorth! Chukotka 2007 Adventure Learning programs in their 4th and 5th grade classrooms (between 9 and 11 years old) during the 2005-2007 academic years. The 2006 program can be accessed at: http://www.polarhusky.com/2006/home2006.asp. The 2007 program is available at: http://2007.polarhusky.com/. The teacher - Mr Johnson (all names used in this paper are pseudonyms) - with whom the students looped had been teaching for twenty years and was motivated by and committed to the Adventure Learning program. In a previous study exploring how teachers integrate Adventure Learning programs in their classroom (Doering & Veletsianos, 2008a), we found that Mr Johnson integrated the Adventure Learning program using a mix of constructivist and directed methods, focused on the authentic and experiential nature of the program and the accompanying online learning environment, and creatively bridged the gap between his classroom and the real world. In addition, Mr Johnson was well-versed in the use of technology and had frequent and open access to a networked computer lab. On average, the computer lab was used twice per week.
Classroom observations focused on student and teacher activities and sought to document the teacher's practice (e.g., pedagogies, activities, classroom management) and the students' behaviours and attitudes (e.g., interest, curiosity, responsiveness). Focus group questions were open-ended and were intended to provide space for the students to share their experiences. Follow up questions were frequently used to elicit further information from the students. Finally, during the interviews the teacher was asked to reflect on his practice and on his students' experiences.
For example, students consistently described the intimate details of all expedition members and their role within the Adventure Learning program. Jimmy said, "Mille has been traveling throughout the Arctic for many years. She is from Denmark and she is one of the expedition leaders. She runs a dog team and she knows the people in the Arctic very well." The students talked about the team members as if they were acquainted for years. Sam said, "I know the explorers very well. They have been traveling throughout the Arctic delivering the [education program] to us for two years." When the authors visited the classroom for the first time, the connection to the Adventure Learning program was immediately revealed through students' introductions. Each of the students stood on their chairs, introduced him/herself, and in detail introduced the dog they "adopted." Sally, for example, said, "My name is Sally and my dog is Freja. Freja is a lead dog and is the mother of Beacon." It is important to highlight the fact that, in the focus group sessions, twenty-nine out of thirty students discussed their connection with the team and used words such as "family," "team," and "group" to describe this relationship.
The students noted that they felt that they were as important as any other students participating in the program, while also stating that the GoNorth! team had made them feel "special" due to the fact that their voice was being heard in the online learning environment via the opportunity to add their own thoughts to the project. For example, the students had created "Polar Husky t-shirts" that were mailed to the team in the Arctic. The team displayed these t-shirts in the online report, delivering a sense of presence and excitement to the students.
The visceral connection described was not limited to the team and the dogs; students also felt a connection with the landscape and its people. In detail again, students described the Arctic, and discussed aspects of the Arctic that they learned from the trail reports and from the curriculum. They understood that the Arctic is a place that is more than ice and snow, but is a location that is impacted by climate change, is a place where animals, such as polar bears, live, and a place that varies greatly throughout the circumpolar region. Students knew the Arctic people, the issues facing the Arctic, and were able to describe the people and the issues in detail. John, for instance, said, "In Russia [the 2007 program], we saw the Yaranga and the reindeer herding people. Then, the cool thing is that we felt that we were there. We saw pictures and videos of Mille and Aaron in the Yaranga with the Chukchi people. They were cooking reindeer. Then there was a picture of all of them together" (Figure 1). Twenty-six out of thirty students throughout the focus groups shared details of the Arctic people and the issues facing the Arctic region.
Figure 1: Text and media describing the people and issues of the Arctic
The connection to the people throughout the Arctic also extended to cultures across the world. Students in the classroom we studied described working with fellow students whom they had never met, but who had posted their projects within the collaboration zones and participated in the synchronous chats. Students not only described other students' projects in detail, but also discussed exactly where their colleagues lived and what it is like to live at those places. Marion said, "I am able to talk with others throughout the world and it is so easy to do. I can also see who I'm collaborating with," while Jan highlighted the fact that she likes to share her work with others, "I like to be able to share my projects with other students...and to hear what they think about our work and about the team and about the dogs and the Arctic." Frank, in a very exciting manner, also revealed his enthusiasm about connecting with others and the possibility of a worldwide audience, "We would post our projects and the next day it was for all the world to see!"
Narrative and closure
When students described their experiences with Adventure Learning, twenty-eight of them described the story in which they participated and "loved to read and investigate." Eric said, "We loved to go to the computer labs to read the updates. It was so much fun to see what was happening next and I just really wanted to be there." Sara said, "I really did feel like I was there with the team, especially Mille. I was so excited that she was there and was one of the leaders." The story behind the experience and the unfolding of the explorers' lived experiences in the Arctic were two of the most referenced items during the focus groups. Students made references to conflicts that arose on the trail (e.g., deciding on the best approach to cross a particularly difficult terrain), survival (e.g., ensuring enough food is available for the team and the dogs), and bravery (e.g., enduring the risks of dogsledding in the Arctic [Figure 2]). These storytelling features seemed to capture the students' attention and imagination (c.f., Egan, 1986) and invite them to immerse themselves in the experience.
Figure 2: Team GoNorth! balances on a pan of ice to cross the lead and avoid falling in the Arctic Ocean
Equally important, students noted that it was difficult for the experience to end, as they wanted to "continue following along." For example, in 2006 the GoNorth! team ended the expedition with a detailed account of arriving to their destination in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. However, the students and Mr Johnson were upset that the "team never said goodbye." Jesse said, "It just seemed like they disappeared and the entire class was pretty sad. We wanted to say goodbye to them." The students needed closure as they felt that they were part of the team. As a result, since 2006, the final trail reports focused on bringing closure by (a) showcasing student work, (b) ensuring that the the GoNorth! team thanked students for their participation, and (c) sending students a farewell message.
Dynamic learning
Dynamic learning refers to the energetic, open-ended, and diverse nature of participating in an Adventure Learning program as described by the students. Billy said, "I never was bored, unlike my other classes. It just seemed there was always something for us to be doing and learning. I liked to watch the movies, see the pictures, and play the online games." Sue said, "My favorite part of GoNorth! was that we could post our projects and then we could participate in the chats with others from around the world." The dynamic nature of the experience the students described was a result of bringing multiple elements together (e.g., collaboration zones, expert chats, trail reports) to give students an encompassing and open-ended learning experience such that each individual or group of individuals could partake in the experience via any means that they found appealing.
Beyond the classroom
Both students and Mr Johnson described numerous activities that represented engagement in and beyond the classroom. For example, at home, students asked their parents and guardians to visit the online learning environment so they could share with them what they were doing in school. Jeff for instance, said, "I have my parents log-on to polarhusky [the Adventure Learning website] so I can show them what I'm doing. It is so much fun to show them this whenever I can." Additionally, sixteen out of thirty students (over 50%) stated that they did an activity outside of class that was not assigned by Mr Johnson. For example, students wrote letters to the local television station to let them know they are traveling to the Arctic without leaving their classroom and raised $1,200 through fundraising to help adopt a dog and give money to an environmental organisation. Lucy said, "As a class, we wanted to raise money to make a difference, just like polarhusky is doing. We wanted to do more than study about something, we wanted to get involved and the great thing was that we could do it for more than one year."
The "hook"
Mr Johnson noted that over two years, he saw a connection the students had to the "hook" of the program - the dogs. As he described, "there are many online learning environments, but not too many pull the students into the environment where they [the students] consistently want more. The difference with the GoNorth program is that the dogs were part of the students' experiences - they were the hook that kept the students coming back for more." In turn, the students described their experiences with the polar huskies and how they encouraged and motivated them to come back. For example, students knew the many minute details of the dogs and followed the Arctic travels with the team and their dog that many had adopted as part of a class activity. Susan said, "I adopted Buttra last year and he is my dog that I follow throughout the year." Michael said, "My dog is Ginger and she is who I look for during every week." The connection that the children felt to the dogs, the "hook" of the program, was further solidified when the researchers visited the students before the beginning of the second year of the expedition and took a dog with them. This action served to highlight the real world aspect of the program and curriculum and introduced a vivid authenticity to one of the most appealing characters of the adventure. We will return to this point at the implications section of the paper where we discuss how interest in the program was sustained throughout its duration.
Mr Johnson described in detail how it was clear to him that the GoNorth! Adventure Learning program was guided by ideas and theories that assisted student learning. He also exhibited an awareness of the principles guiding Adventure Learning and discussed how he found the design of the program "purposeful." For example, he noted that there are no disparate activities between the curriculum and the online learning environment, and that the modules are appropriately scaffolded for his students (e.g., trail reports, photos, and videos are module specific). The collaborative features of the approach and environment also appealed to the teacher, especially because they were well integrated with the learning experience as opposed to being add ons, "That [opportunities for collaboration] is the one of the major strengths of Adventure Learning - allowing my students to talk and interact with other students, experts on the topic, and the explorers in the field."
The design of the Adventure Learning curriculum was based on three levels of pedagogical integration - "Experience, Explore, and Expand." These three levels range from a general directed approach to teaching content to a problem based investigative approach. Mr Johnson appreciated this flexibility because he was able to choose the pedagogical approach that was best for his particular context and students, "I used the experience level to introduce some topics, but I found to truly use the web site, I wanted my students to be at the explore and expand level." The affordances provided by the design of the curriculum and the learning environment allowed the teacher flexibility in integrating adventure learning in his classroom and an opportunity to modify his approach depending on his current needs. The design of the Adventure Learning environment, with its multiple activities and pedagogical options, assisted in enabling the teacher to flexibly integrate this program in his classroom over the two years of this study. Mr Johnson noted, "The students were never bored. I can try to give myself a pat on the back, but I'm sure it is because there are just so many activities that help students learn the content - ranging from the curricular activities to the videos."
Nevertheless, Mr Johnson is a creative teacher with an acute ability to see connections between the Arctic expedition and his students' daily lives. This ability allows him to design appealing activities grounded on the content and interactions within the Adventure Learning program. He is able to guide students through the numerous media and resources available to them via the Adventure Learning site and is able to scaffold their learning. Given the open-ended nature of the Adventure Learning environment, unguided explorations of the site would have been ineffective and inefficient; Mr Johnson understood this and his scaffolding of student exploration is indicative of his strong teaching abilities.
Figure 3: Designing for long-term learning experiences
Interest in the learning endeavour was sustained not merely by the content itself, but by the activities build around the content and the opportunities provided to the learners for participation, the majority of which could not have been possible without the use of social technologies. By building intrigue, tension, fun, excitement, and providing opportunities for interaction, the Adventure Learning approach enabled sustainable engagement with learning that transcended the walls of the classroom. Our field should actively seek ways to design engaging learning experiences that are sustained over time. To do so, future work should investigate how to bridge the gap between classroom instruction and out-of-classroom experiences in locations of interest. Implicit to this idea is the notion that new and emerging technologies allow and foster creative explorations of out-of-classroom settings. Future research could, for example, explore the efficacy of these issues by investigating Adventure Learning deployments in various contexts.
Importantly, open-ended learning environments allow learners to engage with learning experiences in multiple ways, leading to learning experiences/journey that are not uniform or monolithic. This idea reflects the philosophy behind open-ended learning environments with regards to flexibility and self-direction, but instead of focusing on the environment the focus here is on the experience. For example, some learners may be satisfied with reading the trail updates posted every Monday, but others may continue exploring the resources contained within the learning environment. The implications for research and design are far reaching: can designers plan learning experiences for objectives like engagement, interest, and intrigue, especially in open-ended learning environments? If so, how, and to what extent are such strategies successful? The researcher's task is equally complicated: On what basis are non-uniform learning experiences to be evaluated? What makes learning experiences engaging to some students but not to others? Can we devise guidelines for engaging and powerful learning experiences when learning varies with learner willingness and predisposition to engage with learning materials/activities?
Developing such a classification, and viewing the journey of the learner through such a lens will allow designers and researchers to direct their attention to the design of technology enhanced learning experiences that are oriented towards higher level experiences. Instead of focusing on increasing student interest, designers and researchers should aim for higher goals, such as active learner participation and cultivating bonds between learner interests and content. We see this as a fruitful and valuable cause to direct future research endeavours.
While the focus of this research has been on the long-term experiences of learners participating in an adventure learning project, our findings suggest future research and design directions not only for Adventure Learning, but also for technology enhanced education in general. Based on this investigation, designers and researchers are advised to cultivate the learning experience and consider its multidimensionality. In particular:
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6160
Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). Berlin: Springer.
Dahlgren, M. A., Castensson, R. & Dahlgren, L.O. (1998). PBL from the teachers' perspective. Higher Education, 36(4), 437-447.
Doering, A. (2006). Adventure learning: Transformative hybrid online education. Distance Education, 27(2), 197-215.
Doering, A. (2007). Adventure learning: Situating learning in an authentic context. Innovate - Journal of Online Education, 3(6). [verified 4 Apr 2010] http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol3_issue6/Adventure_Learning-__Situating_Learning_in_an_Authentic_Context.pdf
Doering, A., Scharber, C., Miller, C. & Veletsianos, G. (2009). GeoThentic: Designing and assessing with technological pedagogical content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3). http://www.citejournal.org/vol9/iss3/socialstudies/article1.cfm
Doering, A. & Veletsianos, G. (2007). Multi-scaffolding learning environment: An analysis of scaffolding and its impact on cognitive load and problem-solving ability. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37(2), 107-129.
Doering, A. & Veletsianos, G. (2008a). Hybrid online education: Identifying integration models using adventure learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 101-119.
Doering, A. & Veletsianos, G. (2008b). What lies beyond effectiveness and efficiency? Adventure learning design. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 137-144.
Egan, K. (1986). Teaching as storytelling: An alternative approach to teaching and curriculum in the elementary school. Ontario, Canada: Althouse Press.
Ertmer, P. & Simons, K. (2006). Jumping the PBL implementation hurdle: Supporting the efforts of K-12 teachers. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 40-54.
Frykman, S. (2009). Stories to tell? Narrative tools in museum education texts. Educational Research, 51(3), 299-319.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Goodnough, K. & Cashion, M. (2006). Exploring problem-based learning in the context of high school science: Design and implementation issues. School Science and Mathematics, 106(7), 280-295.
Haas Dyson, A. & Genishi, C. (2005). The case: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G. & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
Hokanson, B. & Fraher, R. (2008). Narrative structure, myth, and cognition for instructional design. Educational Technology, 48(1), 27-32.
Parrish, P. (2008). Plotting a learning experience. In L. Botturi & T. Stubbs (Eds.), Handbook of visual languages for instructional design: Theories and practices (pp. 91-111). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Savery, J. R. (2006). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(1), 9-20.
Saye, J. W. & Brush, T. A. (2007). Using technology-enhanced learning environments to support problem-based historical inquiry in secondary school classrooms. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(2), 196-230.
Taylor, S. I., Morris, V. G. & Cordeau-Young, C. (1997). Field trips in early childhood settings: Expanding the walls of the classroom. Early Childhood Education, 25(2), 141-146.
The Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Valanides, N. & Angeli C. (2008). Distributed cognition in a sixth-grade classroom: An attempt to overcome alternative conceptions about light and color. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(3), 309-336.
Veletsianos, G. & Kleanthous, I. (2009). A review of adventure learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(6), 84-105. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/755/1435
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, B., Parrish, P. & Veletsianos, G. (2008). Raising the bar for instructional outcomes: Towards transformative learning experiences. Educational Technology, 48(3), 39-44.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
| Authors: Dr George Veletsianos Assistant Professor of Instructional Technology University of Texas at Austin, USA Email: veletsianos@gmail.com Web: http://www.veletsianos.com/, http://www.twitter.com/veletsianos Dr Aaron Doering Associate Professor of Learning Technologies University of Minnesota, USA. Email: adoering@umn.edu Please cite as: Veletsianos, G. & Doering, A. (2010). Long-term student experiences in a hybrid, open-ended and problem based Adventure Learning program. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 280-296. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/veletsianos.html |