Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Personal Learning Environments and the Personalisation of Learning

109 vues

Publié le

Personal Learning Environments and the Personalisation of Learning - Presentation at the IRIE (GTED) PLI-TELE research group at Universitat de les Illes Balears (UIB), on 15.05.2019 in Palma de Mallorca, Spain

Publié dans : Formation
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Personal Learning Environments and the Personalisation of Learning

  1. 1. Personal Learning Environments and the Personalisation of Learning Prof. Dr. Ilona Buchem Professor for Communication & Media Beuth University of Applied Sciences Berlin IRIE (GTED) PLI-TELE research group at UIB 15.05.2019, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
  2. 2. Psychological ownership and control in Personal Learning Environments Buchem, Ilona, Attwell, Graham, Torres, Ricardo (2011). Understanding Personal Learning Environments:Literature review and synthesis through the Activity Theory lens. Proceedings of the The PLE Conference 2011, 10th – 12th July 2011, Southampton, UK.
  3. 3. Buchem, Attwell & Torres (2011). Understanding Personal Learning Environments: Literature review and synthesis through the Activity Theory lens. pp. 1-33. Proceedings of the The PLE Conference 2011, 10th – 12th July 2011, Southampton, UK. Ownership, control & literacy as core categories from Grounded Theory research
  4. 4. Psychological ownership •Ownership relates to a psychological sense of possession. It is a cognitive-effective state, as expressed in “It is mine!” •Psychological ownership means that a person develops possessive feelings for a target (e. g. own learning environment). •Targets encompass a range of objects of psychological attachment, such as own ideas, own company, or own city.
  5. 5. 20 % 20 % 20 % 20 % 20 % 5 components of psychological ownership Theory of Psychological Ownership Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., Dirks, K. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, p. 298–310. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., Dirks, K. T. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7, p. 84–107. Van Dyne, L., Pierce, J.L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(4), p. 439-459. Sense of belongingness Sense of responsibility Sense of identity Sense of accountability Sense of self-efficacy
  6. 6. Sense of responsibility • When we feel we own something, we feel responsible for protecting it and defending its rights. • When we protect our possessions, we tend to make improvements, control or limit access by others. • When we feel responsible for a target, we invest ourselves into it through energy, time and concern.
  7. 7. Sense of accountability • Accountability is linked to personal perceptions of responsibility. When we feel we own something, we are accountable for what we do about it. • Moral and mental accountability implies feelings of duty, reliability and trust (Knouse, 1979). • We feel accountable for what happens to and with the targets, especially when we perceive the targets as extension of the self.
  8. 8. Sense of belongingness • Belongingness is a fundamental human need to belong, e. g. need for a home. • When we feel we own something, we feel we “belong to” places, be part of a group/ community. • Belonging is “the experience of personal involvement in a system or environment so that persons feel themselves to be an integral part of that system or environment” (Hagerty, et. al., 1992: 173). • Studies have also shown that sense of belonging is related to higher academic achievement and motivation (Jones, 2003).
  9. 9. Sense of identity • We establish, maintain and reproduce self-identity through interactions with tangible and intangible targets, e.g. “this is my profession”. • There are certain possession rituals, e. g. displaying and personalising own possessions. • These rituals transform the culturally prescribed meaning of targets to the expression of self-identity.
  10. 10. Sense of self-efficacy • Sense of self-efficacy relates to the belief in own competencies enabling successful performance in a task. Those who have a strong sense of self-efficacy exert greater effort to master the challenges (Bandura, 1997). • Self-efficacy is also a component of agency. Perceived self-efficacy affects self-regulation: belief in own abilities is related to the ability to set goals, self-monitor and reflect (SRL). • Self-efficacy in context of psychological ownership means that when we feel we own something, our self-efficacy is stronger, e. g. we believe we can control/modify the target.
  11. 11. Research question: Does a learning environment become a Personal Learning Environment when we feel we own and control it?
  12. 12. Key publications Study 1: Buchem, Ilona (2012). Psychological Ownership and Personal Learning Environments. Do possession and control really matter? Proceedings of the PLE Conference 2012, 12 July 2012, Aveiro, Portugal, ISSN: 2182-8229. Study 2: Buchem, Ilona; Tur, Gemma; Hölterhof, Tobias (2014). Learner control in Personal Learning Environments: A Cross-Cultural Study. Journal of Literacy and Technology, Special Edition: Personal Learning Environments: Current Research and Emerging Practice. Volume 15, Number 2: June 2014, p. 14-53. ISSN: 1535-0975. Study 3: Buchem, Ilona; Tur, Gemma; Hölterhof, Tobias. (2014). The Role of Ownership and Control in Personal Learning Environments: A Cross-Cultural Study. Proceedings of the 4th International PLE Conference 2013 Berlin/Melbourne. Study 4: Biberman-Shalev, Liat; Tur, Gemma; Buchem, Ilona (upcoming). Culture, Identity and Learning: A Mediation Model in the Context of Blogging in Teacher Education, Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research.
  13. 13. Conceptual model The Antecedents-Consequences-Model (ACM) of all studies ownershipcontrol learning Antecedents Consequences The conceptual model underlying all empirical studies conducted from 2012 to 2019 is an Antecedents-Consequences Model (ACM), in which psychological ownership is influenced by a number of factors (antecedents) and leads to certain outcomes (consequences). The AC model has been successfully applied in a number of empirical studies, especially in context of organisational ownership (Mayhew et al. 2007; Englisch et al., 2010).
  14. 14. Study 1 (2012) • 3 datasets: Berlin and Augsburg (DE) • Sample: n = 50 HE students using e-portfolios • First set of items: • Psychological ownership: 5 items • Control: 7 items • E-Portfolio use: 8 items Buchem, Ilona
  15. 15. Gemma Tur, University of Balearic Island, Spain Tobias Hölterhof, Catholic University of NRW, Germany Ilona Buchem, Beuth University Berlin, Germany Liat Biberman-Shalev, Levinsky College of Education, Israel Psychological ownership & control in PLEs – collaborating researchers –
  16. 16. Study 2 (2013) • Focus on control and its effects on ownership and outcomes • 3 datasets: Berlin (DE), Ibiza (ES), NRW (DE) • Sample: n = 76 HE students using e-portfolios and Web 2.0 tools • Second set of items: • Psychological ownership: 5 items • Control: 7 items • Outcomes: 11 items Control Ownership Outcomes Buchem, Ilona | Tur, Gemma | Hölterhof, Tobias
  17. 17. Study 3 (2017) • Focus on self of identity as part of psychological ownership and the effects on Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) • 2 datasets: Berlin, Ibiza, Israel • Third set of items (extended by SRL): • Psychological ownership: 15 items • Control: 6 items • Learning incl. SRL: 16 items Control Identity Ownership SRL Biberman-Shalev, Liat | Tur, Gemma | Buchem, Ilona
  18. 18. Study 4 (2019) • Focus on SRL as part of learning outcomes • 2 datasets: Berlin & Ibiza • Fourth set of items with focus on SRL: • Psychological ownership: 15 items • Control: 6 items • Learning incl. SRL: 16 items Control Ownership SRL
  19. 19. Results of study 1 (2012) • Research questions: 1. Can the measure of psychological ownership be effectively applied to learning environments? 2. Can control be considered as an antecedent of psychological ownership of a LE? 3. Can different ePortfolio uses be considered a consequence of psychological ownership? • Variables: • (a) E-Portfolio design influencing the level of perceived control (antecedents) – 5 items, • (b) Psychological ownership as a multi dimensional construct – 7 items • (c) E-Portfolios use indicating different qualities of learning (consequences) – 8 items • Used scales • Control scale: Inconsistent results, so factor analysis was conducted with this result: • Component 1: Control of tangible targets (e. g. technical tools) with 1 item • Component 2: Control of intangible targets (e. g. data, design) with α = .86 • Psychological ownership scale: α = .94 • Use of E-Portfolio: α = .92
  20. 20. Results of study 1 (2012) Key findings based on correlation and regression analysis: 1. Hypothesis “Perceived Control will be positively related to Psychological Ownership”, could be confirmed only for perceived control of intangible ePortfolio elements such as content, planning, design, access rights. 2. There was no significant relation between the control of the tangible targets, such as technical tools, and the sense of ownership of ePortfolio. 3. Hypotheses “Psychological Ownership will be positively related to ePortfolio Use”, could be confirmed in the first study. In particular, sense of responsibility, sense of self-identity and sense of accountability showed to be the strongest predictors of how much time students invested in creating own e-portfolios, creative design and self-directed e-portfolio use. 4. E-portfolio use and quality of learning: The results indicate that the measure of ePortfolio Use proves to be a good predictor of the increase of interest in subject matter, perceived appropriateness of ePortfolio to present own competencies and demonstrate of what one has learned.
  21. 21. Control of tangible / intangible elements
  22. 22. Control of tangible/intangible elements and ownership Control of intangible targets Ownership of learning environment Significant r = .642 Control of tangible targets Ownership of learning environment Not significant! Correlation
  23. 23. Results of study 2 (2013) • Research question: 1. How are control and ownership of learning environments perceived by learners from different national and academic cultures and how do these perceptions impact learning? • Results related to psychological ownership: • The most positive values across all three samples were reached for the dimension “sense of responsibility” with m = 1.97 and students in Berlin feeling more responsible for their LE than students in other two groups (explanation remains open - design differences? cultural differences?). • The most positive values related to “sense of accountability” were achieved by Ibiza students, who were assessed to 50% based on their ePortfolio performance.
  24. 24. Results of study 2 (2013) • Results related to perceived control: • The most positive values across all three samples and across the seven dimensions of perceived control were reached by the Berlin sample with the average value of m = 2.25. • This results raises the question why Berlin students felt more in control of their learning environments than students in other samples? It seems that differences in instructional designs may be a more plausible explanation than cultural differences. • Differences in the 3 samples: • students in Berlin felt strongly in control of planning • students in Ibiza felt strongly in control of design • students in Duisburg felt strongly in control of content
  25. 25. Results of study 2 (2013) • Results related to cultural / instructional design differences: • T tests were computed to compare values of the three key variable sets, i. e. learner control, psychological ownership and learning effects, in 3 samples (representing different cultures in terms of fields of study and nationality). • T tests revealed significant differences in learning effects: • Students in Berlin and Ibiza (compared to students in Duisburg) invested more time in the development of their learning environments, were more engaged and more creative, followed their interests more strongly and felt more strongly that they were learning for themselves. • These are results which may indicate that the instructional design in Duisburg, which was more compulsory and allowed for less freedom of choice, contributed to less positive learning effects.
  26. 26. Results of study 2 (2013) Results related to Ibiza sample: • Psychological ownership The most positive values across all five items measuring the five dimensions of psychological ownership were reached by the Ibiza sample with m = 2.03. • Learning effects: Intrinsic motivation, social learning, future applications, continued use, learning transfer and transformation of learning as dimensions of learning effects reached positive values only in the Ibiza sample! • This indicates that the ePortfolio practice in the Ibiza sample had the deepest impact on learning as it transformed the way students learn.
  27. 27. Future research Control Ownership Learning Next iterations: Control of tangible and intangible elements? Differences in instructional design and control? Differences in instructional design and ownership?
  28. 28. • How can we enhance the feeling of control and ownership of a learning environment in educational settings? • How can proposed conceptual model and research instruments be used in further research? • What are the relationships between agency, SRL, personalisation and ownership? Discussion