Virtual Learning Environments - Essay Example

? Virtual Learning Environments Virtual learning environments have various implications in many s. Over the recent past, they have been used at all levels of education. The content shared is mostly private and restricted to specific group of people in a given institution. This gives them the name, ‘walled gardens’. In every technological development and inception of the related ideas, gains and losses are expected. The virtual learning environments have to face both the advantages and disadvantages. Many students will give a positive report on the system, with terms such as easy access and interesting sessions being used to describe the environment. However, the long run is equally important, because the students are being prepared for it. This is where losses are experienced. To the administrator, the environment may shorten the processes. However, to some others, pressure is experienced in this kind of an environment. While at it, the way forward is to improve the environment so that there is efficiency in the learning environment. Table of Contents Understanding the Virtual Learning Environment 5 The Virtual Learning Environment as a Walled Garden 7 Conclusion 12 Introduction Technology has in many ways changed everyone’s lifestyle. According to Brown & Adler, (2008, p.16-32) the approach people have to life and the means in which given tasks are accomplished has completely changed. The education system has experienced this change, by the introduction of the concept of virtual learning environment. Virtual Learning Environment is a learning experience where students use the web to access academic resources for example class work, various tests, homework among others (Friedman 2005, p.123-125). It is also referred to as Learning Management System When Virtual Learning Environment was first introduced in the learning institution in 1990’s, a wave of pessimism met the concept (Bush & Mott 2009, p.3-20). Lecturers doubted their ability to use the environment. Students on the other hand were limited on the resources necessary to facilitate the environment (Friedman 2005, p.123-125). The concept looked as though it was something that would enable the teachers to evade administration processes. It looked like something in the mirage, probably to be conceived in the minds of many generations to come. However, Sener (1996, p.19-23) explains that technology has a way of making anything attainable, due to its dynamic nature. There are two forms in which virtual learning environment can take place (Gillmor 2006, p. 1-5). Firstly, it can take the form of synchronous learning. In this case, the teacher gives classes live from the web through tools such as power point videos or chatting. Both the teachers and the students are able to interact as they share their views on a given topic. The second aspect of virtual learning environment is that of asynchronous learning. This is also referred to as self spaced method of learning (Holden 1994, p.70-71). The students here are given a chance to act independently, and do the normal class-work. They are also expected to meet certain deadlines, which require commitment to the given tasks. New and better concepts are introduced everyday into the virtual learning environments to attain efficiency and effectiveness in the targeted areas (Friedman 2005, p.123-125). The idea is not limited to a certain location, or done in a specific way. Rather, the idea is flexible, allowing many students to access the information they need in their studies. There is also a shift from the centralization of the concept from the professional teacher. Today, the concept allows for interaction between students and their teachers, and amongst the fellow students. Several tools are used by teachers and students in the web learning. These include: social networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing among others. Virtual learning environment was first fully embraced in the universities. The concept today has evolved to include all learning institutions, for example, the primary and secondary education levels (Holden 1994, p.70-71). It only means that the area is dynamic, yet affecting the education system in both negative and positive way. Sometimes, the term walled garden will be used to refer to this kind of system. This is majorly because there is a restriction on the students who can access the site sin an institution. The students, though many, have their own private place where they can share information and post relevant materials for their course work (Herrington et al 2005, p.353-367). In a sense, there is a wall that separates the students with the world outside. Looking at it in this sense, then one asks if there are any benefits to this. Given there are, would there be any shortcomings of such a system? What could be done to improve this? In this paper, we look at the concept of virtual learning environment, with a special focus on the losses and gains of the walled garden Understanding the Virtual Learning Environment Statistics indicate that at least 68% of students use virtual learning environments in the UK (Ackoff & Greenberg 2008, p.23-35). Out of these, at least 73% of them find it easy to use and 68% of them feel that their education experience has improved since they started using it. This only indicates that the experience is bound to get even better in the future. A majority of the students, at 98%, use the environment to submit the assignments while 86% percent use it to review the lectures. Another 76% will use the environment to access the course outline. Other percentages use it to access in quizzes and viewing their grades (Friedman 2005, p.123-125; Dede 2008, p.13-25). This clearly indicates the dynamic nature of the environment. Some of the students interviewed have admitted that the process saves them a lot of time. The information is easy to locate and use, unlike in an open learning environment that has no such facilities. There are many developments taking place in the environment. Anderson (2006, p.19-25) indicates that some of the organizations, for example, Google, are actively involved in these systems to ensure efficiency of the learning experience. The inclusion of the virtual learning environment in the primary and secondary levels has also called for various developments to ensure that the environment is appropriate (Bloom 1984, p.4-16). The home based system has been of so much use in the recent, that various enhancements have to made in the near future The Components of the Virtual Learning Environments The students are guided through a syllabus, which helps them understand the scope of their study (Bloom 1984, p.4-16). The administrator also gives various instructions on what is expected from the course, how to register, contacts and the number of sessions that will be conducted (Hall 1997, p.12-23). All the resources are made available, or at least the mans of accessing them is made available. This may include quizzes, communication tools, documents that determine quality, hyperlinks among other resources. The teacher has to ensure that all these things are made clear at the beginning of the course to avoid delays. Reasons Why Institutions Use VLES One main reason why most teachers use the virtual learning, methods and tools, is because of the bid to try and economize the little time that is available (Herrington et al 2005, p.353-367). The normal class time sometimes is not enough to cover the course work. The teacher will therefore keep referring the students to such an environment. Flexibility is another reason why virtual learning environments offer (Bloom 1984, p.4-16). The constrained environment in a given place and time, makes the learning environment boring to the students. There also ideas that the students may never express in such an environment. This calls for a different environment to deal with these issues, and hence the use of virtual learning environment. The young generation is very familiar to the dynamic web tools and tools (Bloom 1984, p.4-16). The concept is better received by this young people than in the older generation. This same group is likely to embrace virtual learning environments with ease, hence making the learning environment interesting. This explains why virtual learning environment has grown from the university level to the lower levels of learning. Many learning institutions would want to have constructive networking with other institutions in the same capacity in their learning environment (Herrington et al 2005, p.353-367). This is one way in which this is achieved. Learning institutions have time to interact and share different ideas (Jenkins 2006, p.124-131). This makes it easy to have as many ideas and skills as possible in the learning environment. Further, some of the materials that could have been used in the past are reserved for future reference. The information is easy to preserve, unlike in the formal environment where information is lost and has to be prepared every time for use. The Virtual Learning Environment as a Walled Garden Walled gardens are highly privatized environments, where controls are made on the content shared and the people who can access the information (Shirky 2008 p.120-129; Dede 2008, p.13-25). The walls represent the constraints, while the garden represents the environment of the operation. The virtual learning environments fall into this category due to the constraints made to other members of the public. According to Jenkins, (2006, p.124-131) the content is only accessible to the students pursing given courses in an institution. There are extremes where this is the only method of learning provided for the students in some courses. This environment, if used at most in the learning scene will have both advantages and disadvantages. According to Johnson &Johnson, (1997, p.35-50) the walled garden provides particular content to a selected group in definite period. This is of great importance to the institutions that have taken a lot of time to develop the contents used for learning. Making the content available to every one is in itself a threat to the institutions, especially when they have had to invest heavily on its development. The other aspect is that it gives a platform for development of common mission and vision (Shirky 2008 p.120-129). The community that comes from such an environment is geared towards the same direction without undue disruptions from other users. In this case, children really benefit from the walled garden because they can focus on one aspect at a time. At the university level, heavy investment is done for the sake research in terms of resources and time (Herrington et al 2005, p.353-367). Some of the books may never be availed to the students because they are expensive and rare to find. The walled garden protects this kind of information. At the same time, the students are not denied the very important information that they require for their course work. Further, there are various developments that have been made in the primary and the secondary sectors that are unique to certain institutions It is possible to control some of the elements in a learning environment (Light 2001, p.124-126). These elements may be legal or ethical, where the institutions take the lead role in controlling them. For example, the marginalized groups in the society may never access information and interact freely unless there are controls. Still the institutions may want to ensure that personal data is secured. Keen interest is also given to the branding of the sites to avoid wrong public image of the institutions (Jenkins 2006, p.124-131). At the secondary and the primary school levels, the students may need a lot of guidance as to what is relevant in the learning environment and what is not (Shirky 2008 p.120-129). The students are still young and some concepts, such as the legal and ethical issues are not yet clear in their minds. A teacher is therefore in the right position to control the environment on behalf of such vulnerable groups. The controls allow the institutions to improve the services that they offer and the content used for learning. This enhances the learning experience and ensures that students are retained within the institutions. Secondary and primary use of virtual learning environments has improved greatly due to such indulgencies. According to Phipps et al, (2008, p. 1-23) the teachers at all levels are encouraged to know how to use the web for the benefit of the students. The controls are also made clear so that neither the student nor the teacher go beyond the confines of the system (Jenkins 2006, p.124-131). The areas of weakness are identified with ease and improvements done on the same. Due to such kind of an approach, the students at all levels have conceived the virtual learning environment (Reigeluth 1999, p 24-35). According to (Sclater 2008, p.12-15) A lot of time may be wasted while the students search for information in the website. The walled gardens provide a forum where students log into a given site and quickly received the needed information. At the university level for example, there is very little time to illustrate all that is needed in the course work and the expectations on the same (Rogoff 1990, p.135-137). However, if this is placed on the website, the students will understand the course more easily and saves a lot of time. When the discussions are carried on in the web using blogs and discussion boards, there are chances of exchanging information and engaging in a dialogue (Slavin 1990, p.15-20). However, this depends on the ability of the facilitator to compensate for some of the areas that are wanting. Without this, the students are never able to acquire communication skills and tools in order to be independent in future (Jenkins 2006, p.124-131). This means that they are still able to network with other people and start up dialogues on their own. This is provided in an open learning in a bigger way, where these skills are enhanced and developed. The young children need nurturing in their ability to initiate dialogue and to network with others in the society (Paulsen 2003, p.127-145). This is denied them while the education system takes the form of virtual learning. The children have every thing done for them except to log in and get the information needed. In the future, these young people will not be able to grow into healthy and interactive relationships with the world. Mageau (1990, p.12-18) indicates that some of the most affected persons in this issue are the people who rely entirely on the web, for learning. For example, some people learn from their homes through strict supervision of their teachers. If in this case, the person is young, they are never able to initiate much dialogue and discussion in the future. For such people, the teacher holds the ultimate key towards good dialogue, networking and discussions. Creativity is something that every student should be able to cultivate at a personal level. Vygotsky (1962, p.13-23) explains that it plays a key role while one is approaching life as a professional. Walled garden denies the student the chance for this, due to controls. Innovation and creativity work well when people are allowed to explore all sorts of options and alternatives (Vygotsky, 1978 p.123-129). The students are also given various challenges to bring out the very best out of them, especially in coming up with new ideas to solve life’s riddles. It is easier for students to fall back into the controls, to the solutions freely available if overly exposed to such a system. The students can hence do nothing creative without such an environment. Unfortunately, the world talks of innovation, new ideas, independence among other dynamic elements (Jenkins 2006, p.124-131). In the extremes, the students may have nothing to offer in the market place. Ricci & Ditzler (1991, p.228) indicate that in the virtual environment, the teacher, and no one else has the information that the students need. He defines the kind of information that the students receive. This may give a lot of pressure for him or her to ensure that everything is updated and relevant. He therefore has to spend much time researching the relevant information and giving the appropriate sources of the data. He also has to ensure that the information is easily accessible to the students and is very clear for quick understanding. This already is too much for one person, sometimes bringing in inefficiency in the learning environment. The students have ideas that may help ensure that the gains of education are attained (Dede 2008, p.13-25). The teacher sometimes needs to interact with the students for the concepts to sink in the minds of the young. Freire (1970, p243-250) explains that in such a case, the students feel important, appreciate and ready to learn new concepts. For example, at the university level, the teacher does not have to assume that they understand and know everything. Some of the students may actually be advancing their education and an open learning would help them contribute positively in the course work. Through this, the teacher has less burden to carry, while the students have the ability to test some of the skills they gained else where. Outside the garden, the environment does not allow anyone to access information, even though one could have been allowed in the past (Wiley et al 2004, p.507-520). The students have specific passwords that may change in the future. In an open learning, everyone has their notes and experience. This is made easier even after many years outside the learning experience. The secondary and the primary students are on a learning process, where one level may be related to the former. The notes they took from the primary level may be relevant in the next level o learning. However, they may not be allowed to access the information because they are outside the garden. This kind of system kills the idea of education as a progressive system, where one level is intermarried to many others in the learning environment (Jenkins 2006, p.124-131). Improving the Walled Garden The content of the virtual learning environment is majorly developed by the teachers (Olsen 2008, p.544). Collaboration is least experienced in this environment. This means that the some of the parties it affects directly, in particular the students, have no control over any thing. Collaboration is needed, not only amongst the teachers but also among the students to develop content. In this way, the creativity and ability of students in such contexts is not diminished. Cuban (2001, p.12-15) indicates that the aspect of walled garden does not have to be the only way of learning in the virtual learning environment. There are students who are confined within homes, using this the only way of learning (Weller 2007, p.115-120). This group should be encouraged to consider integrating open learning methods into their learning environment. For example, certain gaps could deliberately left to ensure that the student has a chance to use the open learning to fill them in. some of the contents should also be left open for wider public to view it and contribute towards the same. The walled gardens could also do anything possible to ensure that important documents are made available for the students in the future (Jenkins 2006, p.124-131). For example, some of the materials could be posted in the social networks without restriction on who views them. This way, the information can be referred to in the future. Conclusion The virtual learning environment has brought about a turn around in the education system. Through the web, students are able to learn extensively and engage in constructive discussions con their course work. The system is also referred to as the walled garden because of the restrictions on access to the general public. To most people, there are very key issues that must be considered before this environment is fully embraced. This is despite the fact that there are several benefits that the walled gardens provide to both the student and the teachers The walled garden may not have lived long enough for a majority of people. However, they may stay in longer than we would expect. This is primarily because the education environment has integrated the ICT into the system. This therefore calls for a change of attitude and further, the improvement of the walled gardens to fill in the voids it has created over time. Appendix Tables of the statistics on the use of virtual learning environment The number of the students using the virtual learning environments was 68% Use of virtual learning environment Percentages Assignments 98% Reviewing lectures 86% Accessing quizzes 46% Accessing course outlines 76% Others 28% A table indicating the percentages of ease of use for the students Most of the students indicated that they used the virtual learning environments for varied reasons. Therefore, out of the 68% using the virtual learning environments, some of them would use them for some of the reasons above or for all the reasons above. In the reasons indicated as others, the students would use the environment for other reasons such as connecting with classmates and discussing some difficult classes among other reasons Ease of use Difficulty in use Others 73% 23% 6% The table above indicates the percentages that admitted to have ease of use for the environments. In the group others, the students had the either the same experience as that of an open environment or, their opinion was indifferent in the ease of use for the environment References Ackoff, L & Greenberg, D 2008, Turning learning right side up, Wharton School Publishing, New Jersey. Anderson, C 2006, The long tail: why the future of business is selling less of more, Hyperion publishers, New York. Bloom, S 1984, ‘The 2-sigma problem: the search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring’ Educational Researcher, Vol. 13, No.6, pp.4–16. Brown, S & Adler, P 2008, ‘Minds on fire: open education, the long tail, and learning’ Educause Quarterly, Vol. 42, No.6, 16-32. Bush, M & Mott, J 2009, ‘The transformation of learning with technology learner-centricity, content and tool malleability, and network effects’ Educational technology Vol.49,No.2, pp.3-20 Cuban, L 2001, Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Dede, C 2008, ‘Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning’ in Voogt, J and Knezek, G, (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education, Springer, New York. Freire, P 1970, Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th anniversary edition, London, Continuum. Friedman, T 2005, The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. Gillmor, D 2006, We the media: Grassroots journalism by the people, for the people. Sebastopol, California. Hall, B 1997, Web-based Training Cookbook, John Wiley, New York. Herrington, J., Reeves, T., and Oliver, R 2005, ‘Online learning as information delivery: Digital myopia’ Journal of interactive learning research, Vol. 16, No.4, pp. 353-67. Holden, D1994, ‘Restructuring schools on a service-industry model’ T.H.E. Journal, Vol.21, No.8, pp.70-71. Jenkins, H 2006, Convergence culture: where old and new media collide, NYU Press, New York Johnson, D & Johnson, R, 1997, Joining together: Group theory and group skills (6th ed.), Allyn & Bacon, Boston. Light, L 2001, Making the most of college: students speak their minds, Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA. Mageau, T, 1990, ILS: Its new role in schools, Electronic learning, Vol.10 No.1, pp.31-32. Olsen, J 2008, Using pooled data and data visualization to introduce statistical concepts in the general chemistry laboratory, Vol. 85, No.4, pp. 544. Paulsen, F 2003, Online education and learning management systems- Global E learning in a Scandinavian perspective, NKI Forlaget, Oslo. Phipps, L., Cormier, D., & Stiles, M, 2008, ‘Reflecting on the virtual learning systems – extinction or evolution?’ Educational Developments, Vol.9, No.2. Reigeluth, C 1999, ‘What is instructional design theory and how is it changing?’ Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, pp. 5-29, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey. Ricci, W & Ditzler, A1991, A laboratory-centered approach to teaching general chemistry, Vol. 68, No.3, pp.228 Rogoff, B 1990, Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context, Oxford University Press, New York. Sclater, N 2008, Personal learning environments, and the future of learning management systems. ECAR, Volume 1, Issue 13. Sener, J 1996, ‘Delivering an AS engineering degree program to home-based learners using affordable multiple media’, Journal of interactive instruction development, vol.9, no.2, pp. 19-23. Shirky, C 2008, Here comes everybody, Penguin, New York. Slavin, R 1990, ‘Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy’ Educational leadership, Vol. 47, No.4. Vygotsky, S 1962, Thought and language, MIT Press, Cambridge MA. Vygotsky, S1978, Mind in society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Weller, M 2007, Virtual Learning Environments: Using, choosing and developing your VLE, Routledge, London Wiley, D., Padron, S., Lambert, B., Dawson, D., Nelson, L., Barclay, Wade, D 2004, ‘Overcoming the limitations of learning objects’, Journal of educational multimedia and hypermedia, Vol.13,No.4 ,pp. 507-521. Read More