=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2730/paper38
|storemode=property
|title=Hybrid digital learning environments for college student education
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2730/paper38.pdf
|volume=Vol-2730
|authors=Giusi Antonia Toto,Pierpaolo Limone
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/psychobit/TotoL20
}}
==Hybrid digital learning environments for college student education==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2730/paper38.pdf
Hybrid Digital Learning Environments for College Student
Education
Toto Giusi Antonia1[ORCID: 0000-0001-5538-5858] Pierpaolo Limone1[ORCID: 0000-0003-3852-4005]
1
University of Foggia
giusy.toto@unifg.it
Abstract. Through the analysis of specific constructs such as multiliteracy, mul-
timodality and multimedia, this article seeks to form an innovative teaching pro-
posal within school and training systems. The issues of digital learning environ-
ments and distance learning are investigated to provide teachers with useful tools
for post-COVID teaching practice. The model that the University of Foggia is
imagining (and that could be the reference for a strategic multi-annual plan) starts
from the assumption that the goal is a hybrid university where there is a large
amount of digital innovation and therefore significant digitisation of processes.
The UniFG formative interventions on the use of technology in university teach-
ing will take the form of a series of non-compulsory courses aimed at all teachers,
which will aim to provide the skills necessary for the smart use of digital tech-
nologies in the perspective of a general system innovation and not of specific
courses.
Keywords: Hybrid technology, digital learning enviroments, media education,
Teaching learning center, E-learning center
1 Defining Categories and Application Constructs
In the international debate, the use of multimedia applied to teaching in educational and
academic contexts has a large space. The sudden acceleration towards distance learning
has led to a rethinking of the role of e-learning and digital learning environments within
university contexts.
The fundamental categories for understanding what is happening in online education
are mainly two and have been designated with the concept of multi-literacy [1] and
ubiquitous learning [2]. The concepts of multimedia literacy and multi-literacy are
linked to the alphabetisation of a plurality of languages that characterise contempora-
neity; while in the past, for a long constitutional tradition of the West, alphabetisation
was mainly centred on reading-writing or arithmetic, in the nineties the authors of the
New London Group (1996) [3], indicated to schools and teachers a way to rethink teach-
ing and learning methods in a multi-literacy perspective, i.e. orienting the didactic in-
tervention towards the alphabetisation of a plurality of communication languages such
as videos, images, graphics, comics and video games, which characterise the experience
of contemporary student learning.
"Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).”
2
The concept of multi-literacy is actually linked to a transformation of the role of stu-
dents and learners. In this perspective, according to Cope and Kalantizis [4] the student
must be actively involved in the learning processes, and therefore not passively receive
the information from the teacher, as it happens in the transmission models of the frontal
lesson, often slavishly translated in the first experiments, even in DAD. During an ex
cathedra lesson, each teacher explains to a community of students that by definition are
not very reactive, because they do not share yet the symbolism and horizon of meaning
of the teacher. According to our authors, a truly effective method must be strongly
characterised by interaction: in this way, the students are involved in the learning pro-
cess and enrich the didactic tasks with their own experiences and interests, so they are
not in any way a blank slate to be filled with content.
In this perspective, the student takes on a new role by entering the educational process:
the set of knowledge and skills of the learners are brought into play in the educational
relationship that is experienced through the digital medium. The new figure of the
learner is redefined as a ‘knowledge producer’; he or she is not the recipient of an in-
formation flow but constructs knowledge together with the teacher and the class group,
primarily through a collaborative dynamic between peers [5]. It is therefore necessary
to develop the ability to process a wide range of information resources that are available
in the ecosystem of the info-sphere and in everything that surrounds real life [6].
The subject is at the centre of an enormous flow of communications and must share
knowledge with the peer group, through a collaborative dynamic that is essential in the
learning processes of today’s school. In fact, to be born in a strictly digital context
means being trained to work effectively in collaborative groups (this means that the
student already has the necessary skills to work in groups and in pairs and to carry out
projects among peers, etc. thanks to the playful and cooperative logic of media technol-
ogies) and to build symbolic horizons which differ from those used during frontal les-
sons, in which the main channel of knowledge transfer has a transmission nature and
communication is unidirectional [7]. In this second didactic mode, study and especially
learning are carried out in a somewhat isolated and individual manner.
The analysis proposed in this contribution is devoid of value judgments, since polaris-
ing by simplifying these two worlds (frontal and innovative teaching) makes the speech
arid; it would be instead beneficial if each methodology could influence the other to
improve contemporary teaching practice.
The practice of reading in the traditional Gutenbergian model involves a strong con-
centration of the reader on the different parts of the text, which follows the linear logic
of the practice of reading from right to left. The archetypal model of didactic commu-
nication involves the teachers explaining their lessons from their chairs to many stu-
dents and the students, through this process of transfer of information, taking notes,
sedimenting the knowledge through study and repetition at home and deepening the
topics covered on the textbook.
This process is isolated and very different from the scenario designed by multi-literacy:
digital and innovative teaching structure interventions starting from the push logic, typ-
ical of virtual environments, in which information reaches the student in direct and
immediate forms. The pupils do not go to the source of knowledge as in a library, but
the information reaches them through unexpected and unpredictable forms [8].
3
In such immersive contexts, the learning methods can be experienced beyond the pre-
established schedule of formal education, since the allocation of traditional school time
(typical of nineteenth and twentieth centuries) is overcome by the always-on logic, that
is, the ability of digital technologies to always be online. Therefore, the modalities and
forms of learning are activated beyond school times (and spaces, contextualising con-
temporary situations), from the outside to the inside of the classroom (or even just out-
side the school) in a circular and imperfect process, in which the pieces of knowledge
enter the formative dynamic of the students [9].
In the context of digital revolution, the traditional system of knowledge has completely
exploded and the effects can be traced, for example, in the undermining of the authority
and value of the teacher’s role [10]. Even the system of formal educational agencies
(schools and universities) are affected by this process of epistemological crisis, since
there are (and there will be) many other educational agencies that undermine their
uniqueness.
From the point of view of democratic access to information, we are facing a revolution
of extraordinary significance, described through the concepts of multi-literacy and
ubiquitous learning, which explain this multiplication of educational agencies.
2 Digital learning environments
Studies on digital learning environments [11] linger on three interpretative categories
that are the foundation of e-learning systems: the meaning of digital revolution, the
category of media literacy and the category of multi-modalities.
The contemporary debate has brought back the effects of digital revolution in formative
and educational contexts. Until a few years ago, the introduction of digital technology
in teaching or in the workplace was still adopted with resistance by professionals, even
though discussions on didactic and technological innovation were very present in sci-
entific studies, especially in the Italian context. Today we are facing a change of per-
spective and perception, especially due to the undeniable support that digital technolo-
gies have provided in the emergency phase [12] in relation to the study and work per-
spectives of the subjects.
Returning to the two subsequent concepts of multi-literacy and multi-modalities, they
concern the form taken by the digital medium today; by multi-literacy we mean the set
of a plurality of alphabets available to the new digital media which perform the task of
communicating a message through multi-modalities, that is, a plurality of forms. Mul-
timodality, on the other hand, is an instrumental concept relating to the plurality of
forms that communication can take within a media context. Media integrate multiple
tools to communicate the same message in a plurality of languages [13].
After these brief indicative definitions that focused on the basic concepts of media ed-
ucation, we will move on to didactic innovation, which is the main topic of this contri-
bution. The advent of the medical emergency has rekindled the debate on the educa-
tional possibilities of distance learning and on the (no longer postponable) reflection on
4
didactic innovation in formative contexts; the latter now needs a descriptive and ex-
planatory moment at the same time to redefine its peculiar forms and traits.
As a structural element of formal education, didactic innovation should not be impro-
vised and should comply with a series of flexible and adaptable characteristics (Table
1): in the first instance, innovation in the school landscape must (1) accommodate di-
versity. In other words, this syntagm means and represents the possibility for each sub-
ject to be able to learn in relation to their own styles, times and educational needs.
Respect for educational diversity can be achieved through the principles of individual-
isation and personalisation of learning, a reflection of the socio-constructivist vision
that began with Vygotskij and considers ‘learning’ the result of interaction and social
construction [14].
In addition to accepting diversity, didactic innovation must also propose a critical and
situated knowledge (2). This second construct encompasses the principle according to
which the teachers must not only make the teaching materials available for the fruition
of the lesson or share significant information, but also give their pupils the opportunity
to investigate the proposed topic. Knowledge must in fact be situated, that is, it must be
linked to the context, and therefore contextualised; it cannot be only theoretical content
detached from the socio-cultural background of the learner.
There must also be a gradatio in forms and contents and an educational consequential-
ity of the lessons [15]. The qualification of the critical term, however, is related to the
competence that the students must possess and put in place, especially in relation to
their critical sense towards the sources and messages they consult. In the Anglo-Saxon
context, critical thinking is considered a higher or second level thought that arises and
develops from the acquisition of basic skills that represent its precursors [16].
Four characteristics of didactic innovation
Acceptance of differences
Critical and situated knowledge
Punctual design
Integrated global approach
Table 1. The peculiar characteristics of didactic innovation
There are several elements of change that characterise this new universe of dematerial-
ised communication of digital education, some of which have been discussed in depth
in this essay. The discussion ends with the analysis of a further defining construct of
digital representation systems.
The affordances of participation in contemporary media are changing and this repre-
sents a change of perspective in media education studies [17]. The term ‘affordance’
defines the ‘invitation to use’, that is, what actions an object suggests to the user who
approaches it. This invitation (to use) does not belong either to the intrinsic properties
5
of the object or to the user’s gaze, but arises from a distributed relationship (affordance)
between object and user.
Gunther Kress [18], a scholar of multi-modality, noticed that the affordances of con-
temporary media are changing, since digital technologies allow a new relationship and
therefore an unprecedented space of relationship and cognition between users and vir-
tual objects. Digital media are immediately usable and this invitation to use offered by
their interfaces opens scenarios that were previously unthinkable.
3 Project proposal of a hybrid system of administrative and
didactic services at UniFG
The model that the University of Foggia is imagining (and that could be the reference
for a strategic multi-annual plan) starts from the assumption that the goal is a hybrid
university where there is a large amount of digital innovation and therefore a great dig-
itisation of processes.
For example, it is expected that a digital-oriented student-centred model would allow
the student to perform all the typical functions of online secretariat without physically
entering the offices. A progressive digitisation not only of administrative processes,
though, but also of teaching and learning tasks [19]. To achieve this, a great deal of
open education, open knowledge and open access to consult libraries resources and
teaching materials are needed.
The most significant change, however, does not lie in the modifications of the pro-
cesses, but in a different representation of the student’s and the teacher’s roles [20]. As
they are imagined in the UniFG model, the students are at the centre of a system of
hybrid services, partly digital and partly face-to-face, which allow them to be active,
i.e. stimulated in their agencities and supported in that capacity that makes them the
protagonists of the process of building knowledge through stimuli provided by the uni-
versity.
For example, the student could choose to do a typical and conventional Erasmus, mov-
ing to another city, or a virtual Erasmus, attending distance courses through the plat-
forms of other universities. This hybridisation already exists and it has already been
regulated by the academic bodies of UniFG.
Another evidence of the progressive educational hybridisation concerns the accredita-
tion of courses that are provided by other universities through distance learning modes,
even from abroad, in the context of the twelve credits of each student’s optional course
of studies. Therefore, the students can choose to follow MOOCs (Massive Open Online
Courses, learning programmes developed on platforms such as Edx, Coursera or France
Université Numerique), and have them automatically accredited within their twelve
credits. All of this means ‘blowing up’ the campus and putting the students at the centre
of a range of services.
It doesn’t mean just being at the centre of services, formative opportunities or experi-
ences offered by the university, however, but it also indicates context-specific orienta-
tion: the university becomes a mediator and places itself around the students to facilitate
6
their relationship with the outside world. Much of this ‘outside world’ means digital
experiences that are found in the ecosystem that surrounds the physical structures of
society, and in which the students are not left alone, but accompanied in their choices
through hybrid career advisors (i.e. carried out in person or remotely) who also guide
them through tele-consultations of psychological or counselling nature.
Thus, the medieval idea of the university as a collector of resources that may be present
within the single local institution is overcome, converting it into the idea of the univer-
sity as a multiplier or catalyst of educational experiences that are guided but also ac-
cessible throughout the digital ecosystem. An idea of university, therefore, which opens
itself to the outside, which introjects the potential of the context and which safeguards
the role of the student as an active builder of knowledge and that of the teacher who, in
a renewed perspective, becomes increasingly skilled and a facilitator in the planning of
knowledge and support paths for students [21].
The hybridisation of services and systems must be a part of the process of modification
of the traditional learning environment; for many years, international experiences have
shown the effectiveness of blended learning environments that combine face-to-face
and distance learning [22]. These experiments primarily concerned teacher formative
courses, to train and motivate them in the use of digital technologies during their lessons
[23]. The challenge of this experimentation is to apply this blended logic in a systemic
and adequately designed form to university courses.
Evaluation is another macro theme of educational research [24], that is, how to measure
the effectiveness of learning during distance learning and e-learning courses. Among
the possibilities, some have chosen the traditional face-to-face exam or a series of re-
cursive feedback during the course of studies, others the structuring of tests that are
truly practical and applicative. It is now no longer possible to derogate an answer to
this question in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. Universities must organise train-
ing initiatives for teachers that go in the direction of structuring what the emergency
experience has made manifest, to avoid a phase of rejection of digital technology ap-
plied to teaching.
It should be made even more clear that, in addition to distance learning, technologies
allow for the structuring of much more complex and sophisticated activities, aimed at
improving the quality of teaching and learning. The perception of technology as a prac-
tical tool to be used exclusively in emergencies is a reasoning bias that must not be
supported; the educational challenge is to make people understand all the affordances
of these tools [25]. The UniFG formative interventions on the use of technology in
university teaching will take the form of a series of non-compulsory courses aimed at
all teachers, which will aim to provide the skills necessary for the smart use of digital
technologies, in the perspective of a general system innovation and not of specific
courses.
References
1. Kress, G. R. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication,
Taylor & Francis, New York and London (2010).
7
2. Limone, P. Ambienti di apprendimento e progettazione didattica. Proposte per un sistema
educativo transmediale, Carocci, Roma (2012).
3. The New London Group. “A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures”, Har-
vard educational review, 66(1), 60-93 (1996).
4. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures,
Psychology Press, London, (2000).
5. Livingstone, S., & Sefton-Green, J. The class: Living and learning in the digital age (Vol.
1). NYU Press, (2016).
6. Floridi, L. La quarta rivoluzione: come l'infosfera sta trasformando il mondo, Raffaello Cor-
tina Editore, Milano, (2017).
7. Bonaiuti, G. Storia e principi delle tecnologie educative, in Rivoltella P.C., Rossi P.G., eds.,
Tecnologie per l’educazione (pp.33-44), Pearson, Milano, (2020).
8. Fishman, B., Dede, C., & Means, B. Teaching and technology: New tools for new times,
Gitomer D. H., Bell C. A., eds., Handbook of research on teaching (pp.1269-1334), Amer-
ican Educational Research Association, Washington, (2017).
9. Means,, B., Bakia, M., & Murphy, R. Learning online: What research tells us about whether,
when and how, Routledge, New York and London, (2014).
10. Toto, G. A., & Limone, P. L'evoluzione epistemologica del Self Direction in learning tra
esperienze empiriche e formulazioni teoriche, Formazione, lavoro, persona, 26, 20-25,
(2019).
11. Limone, P. Ambienti di apprendimento e progettazione didattica. Proposte per un sistema
educativo transmediale (pp. 1-176). Carocci, (2012).
12. Paparella, N., Limone, P. & Cinella, G. Pandemia. Apprendere per prevenire, Progedit, Bari,
(2020).
13. Sefton-Green, J., & Livingstone, S. Class in “the class”: conservative, competitive and (dis)
connected. Media and class: TV, film, and digital culture, 176-187, (2017).
14. Rossi, P. G. Tecnologia e costruzione di mondi: post-costruttivismo, linguaggi e ambienti di
apprendimento, Armando editore, Roma, (2010).
15. Rivoltella, P. C. eds., Tecnologia, formazione, professioni. Idee e strumenti per l’innova-
zione, Unicopli, Milano, (2010).
16. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., Persson,
T. Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis, Review of Educa-
tional Research, 85(2), 275-314, (2015).
17. Riva, G. Psicologia dei nuovi media. Azione, presenza, identità e relazioni, Il Mulino, Bo-
logna, (2012).
18. Kress G., Adami E., Limone P. (2015), Multimodalità: un approccio socio-semiotico alla
comunicazione contemporanea, Progedit, Bari.
19. Ito, J., & Howe, J. Al passo col futuro: Come sopravvivere all'imprevedibile accelerazione
del mondo. EGEA spa, Milano, (2017).
20. Osguthorpe, R.T. & Graham, C.R. Blended Learning Environments: Definitions and Direc-
tions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227, (2003).
21. Maragliano, R. Nuovo manuale di didattica multimediale, Laterza, Roma-Bari, (2007).
22. Bakir, N., Devers, C. & Hug, B. Affordances and Constraints of a Blended Course in a
Teacher Professional Development Program. In Proceedings of EdMedia 2016--World Con-
ference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1114-1126). Vancouver, BC, Canada:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), (2016).
23. Jenkins, H. Culture partecipative e competenze digitali, Guerini, Milano, (2010).
24. Laurillard, D. M. Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Pattern for Learning
and Technology, Routledge, New York, (2012).
8
25. Toto G. A. Expertise docente. Teorie, modelli didattici e strumenti innovativi, Franco An-
geli, Milano, (2019).