Deep learning evaluation in vocational teacher education: Conducted on the principles of authentic and dialogical collaborative knowledge construction

Sanna Ruhalahti; Helena Aarnio; Heli Ruokamo

doi:10.3384/njvet.2242-458X.188222

Authors

Sanna Ruhalahti University of Lapland, Faculty of Education HAMK University of Applied Sciences, School of Professional Teacher Education http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5554-1600
Helena Aarnio Ph.D, Lic.A Psych
Heli Ruokamo Ph.D. (Education) Vice Dean, Professor, Faculty of Education Director, Centre for Media Pedagogy University of Lapland, FINLAND http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8679-781X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3384/njvet.2242-458X.188222

Keywords:

Deep learning evaluation, authentic and dialogical collaborative knowledge construction, vocational teacher education, DIANA model

Abstract

The vocational education system is being challenged to achieve a greater amount of deep learning. To facilitate the inclusion of more deep learning in the teaching and learning process, curriculum restructuring is required. This article reports the results of a study that investigated the kind of authentic and dialogical collaborative knowledge construction toward which the DIANA model (Dialogical Authentic Netlearning Activity) directs vocational student teachers (n=76). The results indicate that using authenticity as the basis for a learning process enabled individual study circles (f=19) to define questions that were meaningful to them but mainly directed the learners toward superficial learning-oriented activities. Notably, despite engaging primarily in superficial learning-oriented activities, the results indicate that dialogical collaborative knowledge construction still directed the learners toward deep learning, demonstrating how learning changed and was enriched during the process. The framework re-designed for evaluating superficial and deep learning will facilitate the examination of vocational teacher education learning activities in the future.

Author Biographies

Sanna Ruhalahti, University of Lapland, Faculty of Education HAMK University of Applied Sciences, School of Professional Teacher Education

Teacher Educator, HAMK UAS, School of Professional Teacher Education, University of Lapland , Faculty of Education

Sanna Ruhalahti, M.A. works as a Teacher Educator at the HAMK UAS, School of Professional Teacher Education. Her ongoing doctoral studies at the University of Lapland are focusing on deep learning through authentic, dialogical and collaborative knowledge construction in a diverse digital environments.

Helena Aarnio, Ph.D, Lic.A Psych

PhD, Lic. A. (Psych.), works as a part-time Teacher Educator and coach. Her research and development efforts have focused on interaction as well as learning and guidance in various operational environments, with dialogical learning, guidance and counselling as her areas of expertise.

Heli Ruokamo, Ph.D. (Education) Vice Dean, Professor, Faculty of Education Director, Centre for Media Pedagogy University of Lapland, FINLAND

Heli Ruokamo is a Professor of Media Education at the University of Lapland. She works as a Director at the Centre for Media Pedagogy. Her current research interests are pedagogical models for online learning, the educational use of ICT, playful, game-based, VR and simulation-based learning environments, and mobile and meaningful learning environments.

References

Aarnio, H. (2006). Oppijalähtöisyyttä ja yhteisöllisyyttä tietoverkkoja ja verkostoja hyödyntävään oppimiseen – Tutkimustuloksia DIANA-klinikalta [Enhancing learner-centredness and collaboration in learning online and in networks – Results from DIANA clinic]. Saarijärvi, Finland: Saarijärven Offset.

Aarnio, H., & Enqvist, J. (2002). DIANA-toimintamallin soveltaminen ja kehittäminen [Development and application of the DIANA model]. In H. Aarnio, J. Enqvist, & M. Helenius (Eds.), Verkkopedagogiikan kehittäminen ammatillisessa koulutuksessa ja työssäoppimisessa: DIANA- toimintamalli [Developing net pedagogy for vocational education and for on-the-job learning: The DIANA model] (pp. 5–272). Helsinki, Finland: Hakapaino.

Aarnio, H., & Enqvist, J. (2007). Miten virtuaaliympäristöissä tapahtuvassa opettajankoulutuksessa rakennetaan ammatillisen opettajan asiantuntijuutta? [How does teacher education in virtual environments develop professional teacher’s expertise?]. In S. Saari & T. Varis (Eds.), Professional growth (pp. 145–164). Keuruu, Finland: Otavan kirjapaino.

Aarnio, H., & Enqvist, J. (2016). Diana-mallistako kehys digiajan oppimiselle [DIANA model – A framework for learning in the digital age?]. Ammattikasvatuksen aikakauskirja, 18(3), 38–49.

Aarnio, M. (2015). Collaborative knowledge construction in the context of problem-based learning: Exploring learning from conflicting ideas and knowledge (Doctoral dissertation). University of Helsinki, Institute of Behavioural Science. Helsinki, Finland: Unigrafia.

Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., . . . Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1

Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Biggs, J.B. (1992). Modes of learning, forms of knowing, and ways of schooling. In A. Demetriou, M. Shayer, & A. Efklides (Eds.), Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development: Implications and applications for education (pp. 31–51). London: Routledge.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university. New York, NY: Open University Press.

Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: McKay.

Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139

Bohm, D. (2004). On dialogue. London: Routledge.

Brookhart, S. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Chapman, C., Ramondt, L., & Smiley, G. (2005). Strong community, deep learning: Exploring the link. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500167910

Cho, M.-H., & Rathbun, G. (2013). Implementing teacher-centred online teacher professional development (oTPD) programme in higher education: A case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.760868

Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1971). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X

Czerkawski, B. (2014). Designing deeper learning experiences for online instruction. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(2), 29–40.

Eklund, A.-C., Mäkitalo, Å., & Säljö, R. (2011). Noticing the past to manage the future: On the organization of shared knowing in IT-support practices. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 122–137). Abingdon, UK: Routledge & EARLI.

Engeström, Y., & Toiviainen, H. (2011). Co-configurational design of learning instrumentalities: An activity-theoretical perspective. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 33–52). Abingdon, UK: Routledge & EARLI.

Enqvist, J., & Aarnio, H. (2004). Crucial dialogic actions in co-constructive knowledge creation in online learning environment. In L. Cantoni, & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2004, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 2576–2583). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Entwistle, N. (2005). Contrasting perspectives on learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (pp. 3–22). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment.

Fredriks, J.A. (2014). Eight myths of student disengagement: Creating classrooms of deep learning (Classroom insights from educational psychology). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corvin. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483394534

Garrison, D.R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2

Gibson, D. (2013). Assessing deeper learning in open online learning communities. In R. McBride & M. Searson (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013 (pp. 459–465). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

HAMK School of Professional Teacher Education. (2013). Opinto-opas [Study guide 2013–2014]. Hämeenlinna: HAMK publications.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T.C., & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. London: Routledge.

Kloetzer, L. (2017). VET as transformative, collaborative research: Cross self-confrontation, dialogical artefacts, and the development of organizational dialogue in a Swiss factory. Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 7(2), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.3384/njvet.2242-458X.177263

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Lucas, U. (2001). Deep and surface approaches to learning within introductory accounting: A phenomenographic study. Accounting Education, 10(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639280110073443

Ludvigsen, S., Lund, A., Rasmussen, I., & Säljö, R. (2011). Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices. Abingdon, UK: Routledge & EARLI.

Marzano, R.J., & Kendall, J.S. (2008). Designing and assessing educational objectives: Applying the new taxonomy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

McGee, P., & Wickersham, L. (2005). Seeking deeper learning within an online course. In G. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2005 (pp. 2205–2212). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic process of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001

Muukkonen, H., Lakkala, M., & Paavola, S. (2011). Promoting knowledge creation and object-oriented inquiry in university courses. In S. Ludvigsen, A. Lund, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites: New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 172–189). Abingdon, UK: Routledge & EARLI.

Nelson Laird, T.F., Seifert, T.A., Pascarella, E.T., Mayhew, M.J., & Blaich, C.F. (2014). Deeply affecting first-year students’ thinking: Deep approaches to learning and three dimensions of cognitive development. The Journal of Higher Education, 85, 402–432. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2014.0017

Näykki, P. (2014). Affective and effective collaborative learning: Process-oriented design studies in a teacher education context (Doctoral dissertation). University of Oulu, Finland. Tampere, Finland: Juvenes Print.

Paavola, S., Engeström, R., & Hakkarainen, K. (2012). The trialogical approach as a new form of mediation. In A.Moen, A. Mørch, & S. Paavola (Eds.), Collaborative knowledge creation: Practices, tools, concepts (pp. 1–14).Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-004-0_1

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2002). Epistemological foundations for CSCL: A comparison of three models of innovative knowledge communities. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Computer support for collaborative learning: Foundations for a CSCL community. Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2002 Conference (pp. 24–32). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557–576. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074004557

Resnick, L.B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1–20). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-018

Ruhalahti, S., Korhonen, A.-M., & Ruokamo, H. (2016). The dialogical authentic Netlearning activity (DIANA) model for collaborative knowledge construction in mOOC. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 4(2), 58–67.

Ruhalahti, S., Korhonen, A.-M., & Rasi, P. (2017). Authentic, dialogical knowledge construction: A blended and mobile teacher education programme. Educational Research, 59(4), 373–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2017.1369858

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016619705184

Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors of learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027002004

Shaffer, D.W., & Resnick, M. (1999). “Thick” authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 195–215.

Smith, T.W., & Colby, S.A. (2007). Teaching for deep learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(5), 205–210. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.5.205-210

Stokols, D. (2014). Training the next generation of transdisciplinarians. In M.O. O’Rourke, S. Crowley, S.D. Eigenbrode, & J.D. Wulfhorst (Eds.), Enhancing communication & collaboration in interdisciplinary research (pp. 56–81). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483352947.n4

Tagg, J. (2003). The learning paradigm college. Boston, MA: Anker.

Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: Theorizing qualitative research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226180458.001.0001

Teräs, H. (2016). Design principles of an authentic online professional development program for multicultural faculty (Doctoral dissertation). University of Tampere, School of Education. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press.

Teräs, M. (2017). Transforming vocational education and training in Finland: Uses of developmental work research approach. Nordic Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 7(2), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.3384/njvet.2242-458X.177222

Tillema, H.H. (2006). Authenticity in knowledge-productive learning: What drives knowledge construction in collaborative inquiry? Human Resource Development International, 9(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860500523122

Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-006-6840-8

West, D.M. (2015). What happens if robots take the jobs? The impact of emerging technologies on employment and public policy. Washington, DC: Centre for Technology Innovation at Brookings.

Williams, D.D. (2005). Measurement and assessment supporting evaluation in online settings. In D.D. Williams (Ed.), Online assessment, measurement and evaluation: Emerging practices (pp. 1–8). Hershey, PA: Information Science.

Yin, R.K. (2009). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.