Advertisement

Smart Literacy Learning in the Twenty-First Century: Facilitating PBSL Pedagogic Collaborative Clouds

  • Margaret AkerEmail author
  • Luis Javier Pentón Herrera
Chapter
Part of the Bridging Human and Machine: Future Education with Intelligence book series (BHMFEI)

Abstract

Prevalent in the literature are the components of smart education, learning, and literacies; smart pedagogies are encouraged, but practical examples are scant. A gap between education and the workplace has been acknowledged; how can smart pedagogy fill the void? This chapter provides an example of an innovative educational process bridging the interval utilizing an online problem-based service learning (PBSL) instructional approach and a pedagogic collaborative cloud, a smart pedagogic collaborative cloud (PCC). Educators collaborating together are a crucial component of the changing praxis. In a university course using a PBSL approach, students collaboratively identified a problem—lack of time. A literacy pedagogic collaborative cloud was identified as the solution to the problem. A pilot study was performed (n = 12) to ascertain interest in the idea and warrant conducting a study. A triangulated qualitative study (n = 45) was implemented; a broad constructive theoretical framework provided support for smart education, PBSL, and the pedagogic collaborative cloud. The research questions were: (1) Does the interest or need exist to create a literacy collaborative cloud for graduate students and alumnae? (2) What was the best format to encourage participation? Four types of data were collected and quality checks instituted. The findings revealed 80% of the participants agreed with the creation of a literacy pedagogic collaborative cloud (LPCC); 100% of the participants preferred to collaborate with a group of professionals in their field, and 100% agreed collaboration improved teaching practice. A private literacy PCC was created on Facebook; the implications are clear—smart pedagogy can fill the university/workplace void.

Keywords

Mobile learning Pedagogic collaborative clouds Smart learning Problem-based service-learning 

Notes

Glossary of Terms

Collaboration

A group of two or more people learning together.

Collaborative learning cloud

Cloud-based learning supported by collaborative tools including the Google platform, Padlet, social networks, and forums.

Community cloud

A cloud location designed specifically with a group possessing one or multiple shared concerns which is managed and operated either internally by the group or externally by a third party.

E-learning collaborators

Collaborators in the e-learning environment possessing the dual emphasis of providing and consuming.

Informal professional development

Informal activities established to engage interaction, learning, and growth among educational professionals focused on practice.

Literacy

Today, the definition of literacy incorporates and transcends functional literacy; literacies include the interactive, complex application of the skills, knowledge, and abilities needed to meet the social, cultural, political, technological, and economic challenges of the nonlinear twenty-first-century world.

Online collaborative learning

Online collaborative discourse designed to promote knowledge building to incite learning and action.

Online community

A formal or informal group situated in the online environment focused on a common purpose.

Peer professional development

A group of peers linked by a similar professional practice sharing, creating, and reflecting; learning together.

Private cloud communities

A cloud community is designed to provide support for a specific group of individuals.

Problem-based service learning

A collaborative approach to instruction based on finding solutions to authentic problems and incorporating a service-learning component.

Smart

“Smart” reflects logical, individualized, and flexible education, learning, environments, or pedagogy.

Smarter

A “smarter” education or pedagogy emphasizes changing instruction for the better linked to incorporating twenty-first-century skills.

References

  1. AEA 267. (2007). How good is good enough? Cedar Falls, IA: Area Education Agency.Google Scholar
  2. Aker, M. (2018). Literacy collaborative cloud: Living the dream. In D. Parsons, R. Power, A. Palalas, H. Hambrock & K. MacCallum (Eds.), Proceedings of 17th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (pp. 64–76). Chicago, IL, USA: Concordia University Chicago. Retrieved February 12, 2019 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/184924/.
  3. Aker, M. (2019). A conceptual kaleidoscope: Higher education academics activating problem-based learning and engaging 21st century skills., (Doctoral dissertation) River Forest, IL: Concordia University Chicago.Google Scholar
  4. Aker, M., Pentón Herrera, L. J., & Daniel, L. (2018). Back to the future: The implications of service and problem-based learning in the language, literacy, and cultural acquisition of ESOL students in the 21st century. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 18(2), 165–181.Google Scholar
  5. Ariyanto, L., Kusumaningsih, W., & Aini, A. N. (2018, March). Mobile phone application for mathematics learning. International Conference on Mathematics, Science and Education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 983(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  6. Auerbach, A. J., & Andrews, T. C. (2018). Pedagogical knowledge for active-learning instruction in large undergraduate biology courses: A large-qualitative investigation of instructor thinking. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bognar, B., Sablić, M., & Škugor, A. (2019). Flipped learning and online discussion in higher education teaching. In L. Daniela (Ed.), Didactics of smart pedagogy (pp. 371–392). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borawska-Kalbarczyk, K., Tołwińska, B., & Korzeniecka-Bondar, A. (2019). From smart teaching to smart learning in the fast-changing digital world. In L. Daniela (Ed.), Didactics of smart pedagogy (pp. 23–39). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brooks, M. G., & Brooks, J. G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18–24.Google Scholar
  10. Byrne, J. R., Kearney, S., & Sullivan, K. (2019). Technology-mediated collaborative learning: The bridge 21 activity model in theory and practice. In L. Daniela (Ed.), Didactics of smart pedagogy (pp. 309–330). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caena, F. (2014). Initial teacher education in Europe: An overview of policy issues. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/experts-groups/2014-2015/school/initial-teacher-education_en.pdf.
  12. Canada. (2017). 13 ways to modernize youth employment in Canada: Strategies for a new world of work. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/corporate/youth-expert-panel/report-modern-strategies-youth-employment.html.
  13. Casey, A. (2012). A teacher-researcher and his students. In B. Dyson & A. Casey (Eds.), Cooperative learning in physical education: A research-based approach (pp. 75–87). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Chang, W. L., & Lee, C. Y. (2013). Trust as a learning facilitator that affects students’ learning performance in the Facebook community: An investigation in a business planning writing course. Computers & Education, 62, 320–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  18. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  19. European Commission. (2018). Key competencies for lifelong learning. Commission Staff Working Document. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0014.
  20. Freire, P. (2009). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  21. Fullan, M. (2007). Change theory as a force for school improvement. Intelligent leadership (pp. 27–39). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fullan, M. (2013a). The new pedagogy: Students and teachers as learning partners. LEARNing Landscapes, 6(2), 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fullan, M. (2013b). Stratosphere: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and change knowledge. Ontario, Canada: Pearson.Google Scholar
  24. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
  25. Fullan, M., & Pinchot, M. (2018). Fast track to sustainable turnaround. Educational Leadership. Retrieved from http://summit.carnegiefoundation.org.
  26. Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. (2017). Deep learning: Engage the world change the world. Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gallup-Lumina. (2014). What America needs to know about higher education redesign. Retrieved from https://www.gallup.com/services/176759/america-needs-know-higher-education-redesign.aspx.
  28. Gamage, S., & Tanwar, T. (2017). Strategies for training or supporting teachers to integrate technology into the classroom. Ottawa, CA: International Development Research Centre.Google Scholar
  29. Gros, B. (2016). The dialogue between emerging pedagogies and emerging technologies. In B. Gros, Kinshuk, & M. Maina (Eds.). The future of ubiquitous learning: Learning designs for emerging pedagogies (pp. 3–24). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  31. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. L. (Eds.). (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hernández-Lara, A. B., Perera-Lluna, A., & Serradell-López, E. (2018). Applying learning analytics to students’ interaction in business simulation games. Computers in Human Behavior. Retrieved from https://upcommons.upc.edu/bitstream/handle/2117/119903/CHB_bigdata_completetext_v20180119.pdf.
  34. Herrera, L. J. P., Daniel, L., & Aker, M. (in press). Developing opportunity youth’s literacy, creativity, and critical thinking through PBSL: Facilitating 21st century learning and mixed realities. English Leadership Quarterly.Google Scholar
  35. Hwang, G. J. (2014). Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environments. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Illeris, K. (2009). Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists…in their own words. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Infosys. (2016). Amplifying human potential: Education and skills for the fourth industrial revolution. Retrieved from http://www.experienceinfosys.com/humanpotential.
  38. Issa, T., & Kommers, P. (2013). Editorial. International Journal Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 23(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  39. Juaneda-Ayensa, E., Olarte-Pascual, C., San Emeterio, M. C., & Pelegrín-Borondo, J. (2019). Developing new “Professionals”: Service learning in marketing as an opportunity to innovate in higher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 60, 163–169. ResearchGate: Free Access.Google Scholar
  40. Kaimara, P., & Deliyannis, I. (2019). Why should I play this game? The role of motivation in smart pedagogy. In L. Daniela (Ed.), Didactics of smart pedagogy (pp. 113–137). Cham, CH: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kim, B. H., & Oh, S. Y. (2014). A study on the SMART education system based on cloud and n-screen. Science & Education, 15(1), 137–143.Google Scholar
  42. Kinshuk, Chen, N. S., Cheng, I. L., & Chew, S. W. (2016). Evolution is not enough: Revolutionizing current learning environments to smart learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 561–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kroth, M., & Boverie, P. (2009). Using the discovering model to facilitate transformational learning and career development. Journal of Adult Education, 38(1), 43–47.Google Scholar
  44. Lampe, C., Wohn, D. Y., Vitak, J., Ellison, N. B., & Wash, R. (2011). Student use of Facebook for organizing collaborative classroom activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(3), 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Limbu, M. (2012). Teaching writing in the cloud. Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging Pedagogies, 1(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  46. Lopez, K. S. (2012). Managing digital identities: A grounded theory of mental health professionals’ online experiences., (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Houston, TX: University of Houston Graduate College of Social Work.Google Scholar
  47. Lorenzo, N., & Gallon, R. (2019). Smart pedagogy for smart learning. In L. Daniela (Ed.), Didactics of smart pedagogy (pp. 41–69). Cham, CH: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Luckin, R. (2010). Re-designing learning contexts. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Magda, A. J., & Asianian, C. B. (2018). Online college students 2018: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Louisville, KY: The Learning House Inc.Google Scholar
  50. Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2017). Implications of social network sites for teaching and learning. Where we are and where we want to go. Education and Information Technologies22(2), 605–622.Google Scholar
  51. Marlowe, B. A., & Page, M. L. (1998). Creating and sustaining the constructivist classroom (Rev ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  52. Marmolejo, F. (2018, July 24). Global trends in higher education: Why it matters in the North American region? APLU. Summer Meeting: Guadalajara, Mexico. Retrieved from http://www.aplu.org/members/commissions/international-initiatives/cii-summer-meeting-documents/2018-summer-meeting/Marmolejo%20Presentation.pdf.
  53. Martin, A. (2005). DigEuLit–A European framework for digital literacy: A progress report. Journal of eLiteracy, 2(2), 130–136.Google Scholar
  54. Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55, 444–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Muecke, M. A. (1994). On the evaluation of ethnographies. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue (pp. 187–209). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Newport, H. (1906). Nature study and its agricultural phase for state schools in Queensland. Queensland Agricultural Journal, 16, 163–174.Google Scholar
  58. Ng, W., Howard, N., Loke, S., & Torabi, T. (2010). Designing effective pedagogical systems for teaching and learning with mobile and ubiquitous devices. In T. T. Goh (Ed.), Multiplatform e-learning systems and technologies (pp. 42–56). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (OECD). (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation. 4th edition. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264304604-en.pdf?expires=1550062495&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=A446E29B85084B8F7A21E4D80F9C9F5F.
  60. Ornellas, A. (2018, July). Defining a taxonomy of employability skills for 21st-century higher education graduates. In 4th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAD’18) (pp. 1325–1332). València, ES: Universitat Politècnica de València.Google Scholar
  61. Patahuddin, S. M., & Logan, T. (2019). Facebook as a mechanism for informal teacher professional learning in Indonesia. Teacher Development, 23(1), 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Piaget, J. (1970). Structuralism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  63. Radenković, B., Despotović, M., Bogdanović, Z., & Barać, D. (2009). Creating adaptive environment for e-learning courses. Journal of Information and Organizational Sciences, 33(1), 179–189.Google Scholar
  64. Razmerita, L., & Kirchner, K. (2014). Social media collaboration in the classroom: A study of group collaboration. In N. Baloian, R. Burstein, H. Ogata, F. Santoro, & G. Zurita (Eds.), Collaboration and Technology (pp. 279–286). 20th International Conference, CRIWG 2014, Santiago, Chile, September 7–10, 2014. Proceedings. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  65. Rheingold, H. (2012). Stewards of digital literacies. Knowledge. Quest, 41(1), 53.Google Scholar
  66. Rutherford, C. (2010). Facebook as a source of informal teacher professional development. Education, 16(1), 60–74.Google Scholar
  67. Scott, C. L. (2015). The futures of learning 3: What kind of pedagogies for the 21st century? Education Research and Foresight Working Papers. UNESCO. Retrieved from http://disde.minedu.gob.pe/bitstream/handle/123456789/3747/The%20Futures%20of%20Learning%203%20what%20kind%20of%20pedagogies%20for%20the%2021st%20century.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
  68. Seifert, T., & Har-Paz, C. (2018, March). Mobile learning and its effects on self-regulated learning and school achievements in an efl high school class. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 784–794). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  69. Shagoury, R., & Power, B. M. (2012). Living the questions: A guide for teacher researchers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.Google Scholar
  70. Singh, A. D., & Hassan, M. (2017). In pursuit of smart learning environments for the 21st century. Current and Critical Issues in Curriculum Series, No. 12. Geneva: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  71. Spector, J. M., Ifenthaler, D., Johnson, T. E., Savenye, W. C., & Wang, M. M. (Eds.). (2015). Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  72. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  73. Staudt, D., Clair, S. N., & Martinez, E. E. (2013). Using Facebook to support novice teachers. The New Educator, 9, 152–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sulaiman, A., & Dashti, A. (2018). Students’ satisfaction and factors in using mobile learning among college students in Kuwait. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(7), 3181–3189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tabor, S. (2016). Making mobile learning work: Student perceptions and implementation factors. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice., 15(1), 75–98.Google Scholar
  76. Taylor, P. C. (2016). Why is a STEAM curriculum perspective crucial to the 21st century? Retrieved from http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/37950/1/STEAM.pdf.
  77. Trotter, A. (2009, January 9). Mobile Devices Seen as Key to 21st-Century Learning. Education’s Week Digital Directions. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2009/01/09/04mobile.h02.html.
  78. U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Characteristics of future ready leadership: A research synthesis. Office of Educational Technology. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/leaders/research/.
  79. Uskov, V. L., Bakken, J. P., Heinemann, C., Rachakonda, R., Guduru, V. S., Thomas, A. B., et al. (2017). Building smart learning analytics system for smart university. International Conference on Smart Education and Smart E-Learning (pp. 191–204). Cham, CH: Springer.Google Scholar
  80. Uskov, V. L., Bakken, J. P., Penumatsa, A., Heinemann, C., & Rachakonda, R. (2018). Smart pedagogy for smart universities. In V. L. Uskov, R. J. Howlett, & L. C. Jain (Eds.), Smart education and e-learning 2017 (pp. 3–16). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Van Bommel, J., & Liljekvist, Y. (2016). Teachers’ informal professional development on social media and social network sites: When and what do they discuss? In ERME-Topic Conference: Mathematics Teaching, Resources and Teacher Professional Development, Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, Germany, October 5–7, 2016.Google Scholar
  82. Vincent-Lancrin, S., Urgel, J., Kar, S., & Jacotin, G. (2019). Measuring innovation in education 2019: What has changed in the classroom? OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264311671-en.pdf?expires=1548951979&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=31262B2A2EF74C11D43D295A33A7E4CB.
  83. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Weiland, S. (2015). Open educational resources: American ideals, global questions. Global Education Review, 2(3), 4–22.Google Scholar
  85. Wheatley, M. J., & Frieze, D. (2011). Walk out walk on: A learning journey into communities daring to live the future now. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Loehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  86. Yates, G. C., & Hattie, J. (2013). Visible learning and the science of how we learn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  87. Yeh, E., & Swinehart, N. (2018). A model for mobile social media integration in constructivist ESL classrooms. Handbook of research on mobile technology, constructivism, and meaningful learning (pp. 68–89). IGI Global: Hershey, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zhao, Y., Zhang, G., Lei, J., & Qiu, W. (2015). Never send a human to do a machine’s job: Correcting the top 5 EdTech mistakes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  89. Zhu, Z. T., & He, B. (2012). Smart Education: New frontier of educational informatization. E-education Research, 12, 1–13.Google Scholar
  90. Zhu, Z. T., Yu, M. H., & Riezebos, P. (2016). A research framework of smart education. Smart learning environments, 3(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Žogla, I. (2019). Principles of learner learning-centred didactic in the context of technology-enhanced learning. In L. Daniela (Ed.), Didactics of smart pedagogy (pp. 71–94). Cham, CH: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Concordia University ChicagoRiver Forest, ILUSA
  2. 2.American College of EducationIndianapolis, INUSA

Personalised recommendations