Defining a Formal Model of Edutainment That Enhances the Learning
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Defining A Formal Model of Edutainment That Enhances the Learning of Cyber Security Subjects By Higher Education Students David Chadwick A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Greenwich for the degree of Doctor of Education February 2016 i DECLARATION “I certify that this work has not been accepted in substance for any degree, and is not currently being submitted for any degree other than that of Doctorate in Education (EdD) being studied at the University of Greenwich. I also declare that this work is the result of my own investigations except where otherwise identified by references and that I have not plagiarised the work of others.” Student’s signature: Supervisor’s signature: ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisors Prof. Jill Jameson and Dr. Priti Chopra for their unwavering help and guidance over the years. It is quite clear to me that I would never have got this far without their invaluable comments, time and patience. Thank you both, very much. iii ABSTRACT This thesis was about construction of a model of edutainment (education + entertainment) concerning teaching of cybersecurity in higher education. Cybersecurity has become an important issue for most nations, requiring a search for new methods of teaching. Although many see the way forward as the application of technology to the teaching process, a so-called technology-fix, since learning is essentially a human experience, with teaching a predominantly human to human experience, it is argued that a psychology-of-learning-fix of some kind might be more useful. The resultant model of edutainment created herein was derived from a literature review and analysis of six existing models of edutainment good practice and the resultant model was trialled in two ways: Firstly, it was used by the researcher in teaching a student cohort and six types of feedback (formal student surveys, informal student surveys, informal student interviews, formal student performance statistics, formal student attendance statistics, lecturer’s personal reflections) were collected and used to further improve the model. Secondly, parts of the model were trialled by fellow lecturers in their own teaching scenarios (taster sessions, new courses) and also presented in three conference presentations (cybersecurity, forensics, STEM). In all cases feedback was obtained on acceptability or otherwise of the model. Findings in all categories were positive that the model was a contribution to knowledge. Pedagogically speaking, the model demonstrates a synergistic blend of education with fun and play that may enhance students’ learning experiences overall. The notion of promoting ‘deeper learning’, as opposed to shallow learning, has been used to underpin the research reported herein. Overall, the research found that by combining entertainment purposefully with education using psychological principles that are common to both, student outcomes for the higher education taught curriculum in cybersecurity courses were improved. iv CONTENTS Acknowledgements iii Abstract iv Contents v List of Tables and Figures xi CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1.1What Is Meant By: Edutainment 2 1.2 What Is Meant By: Cyber-Security And Higher Education 4 1.3 What Is Meant By: Model 5 1.4 What Is Meant By: Enhance Learning 6 1.5 What Is Meant By: Defining A Formal 7 1.6 Why The Need For Such A Model? 8 1.6.1 Need for Continual Improvement in Teaching 9 ‘ 1.6.2 The Political Need For Teaching More Cybersecurity Practitioners 10 1.6.3 Need For New Ways Of Teaching In The Lifelong Learning Process. 11 1.7 Conclusion 12 1.8 Chapter By Chapter Roadmap Of This Thesis 12 CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW 14 2.1 PART I : What Is Edutainment? 16 2.1.1 Characterisation: 18 2.1.2 Narrative 19 2.1.3 Humour 20 2.1.4 Music 22 2.1.5 Games 24 2.1.6 What do we mean by Education: Pedagogy, Andragogy and Heutagogy? 28 2.1.7 Synergy between education and entertainment 30 2.1.7.1 Primacy and Recency 32 2.1.7.2 Frequency Effects 33 2.1.7.3 Von Restorff (Isolation) effect, 33 v 2.1.7.4 Zeigarnick (Interruption) Effect 34 2.1.7.5 Eidetic Imagery Effect 34 2.1.7.6 Cognitive Loading Effects 35 2.1.7.7 The Laurel and Hardy Joke 36 2.1.8 Are there existing models of Edutainment? 37 2.1.8.1 Horrible Science 39 2.1.8.2 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures 39 2.1.8.3 The Archers 40 2.1.8.4 Sesame Street 40 2.1.8.5 Soul City 41 2.1.8.6 Alice in Wonderland 42 2.1.9 Overview of Part I 43 2.2 PART II: CAN EDUTAINMENT ENHANCE LEARNING? 44 2.2.1 Learning Models 44 2.2.1.1Kolb’s Learning Cycle 44 2.2.1.2Bloom’s Taxonomy 45 2.2.1.3Gardner’s 7 Intelligences 45 2.2.1.4 Prosser & Trigwell Presage-Process-Product Model 46 2.2.2 PPP Model: What is meant by Student Characteristics? 48 2.2.2.1The PPP Model : What do we mean by Learning Context? 50 2.2.2.2 The PPP Model : What is meant by ‘Dissonance’? 51 2.2.3 How Could Edutainment Enhance Learning? 51 2.2.3.1 Attentive Domain: Improving Attention-spans 52 . 2.2.3.2 Affective Domain: Emotionally Positive Learning Environment 56 2.2.3.3 Cognitive Domain: Providing Scaffolding for Learning Process 58 2.2.4 Overview of Part II 59 2.3 PART III : BUILDING THE MODEL: WHAT PROBLEMS MIGHT RISE? 60 2.3.1 Question 1: What Research Paradigms Might Be Used Here? 60 2.3.1.1 Objectivism (Positivism) 60 2.3.1.2 Subjectivism (Constructivism) 61 2.3.1.3 Grounded Theory 63 vi 2.3.1.4 Hermeneutics 64 2.3.1.5 Action Research 65 2.3.2 Question 2: Is It Appropriate For Adults To Play During Learning? 65 2.3.3 Question 3: Can Models Designed For Children Be Adapted For Adults? 69 2.3.4 Overview of Part III 71 2.4 PART IV PROFESSIONAL ISSUES 72 2.4.1 Lecturers : Gaining Teacher Support for Edutainment in the classroom 72 2.4.1.1 Lecturer Support: Discipline-specific Pedagogic Knowledge (DPK)74 2.4.1.2 Lecturer Support: Pedagogy As Design Science 75 2.4.2 University Managers 77 2.4.3 Educational Funding Bodies 77 2.4.4 Lifelong Learning 79 2.4.5 Professional Bodies and Employers 80 2.4.6 Software-based Serious Games Industry 81 2.5 Literature Review: Synopsis. 82 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 85 3.1 What Is Methodology? 85 3.2 STEP 1: Selecting Theoretical Principles for Model 89 3.3 STEP 2: Selection Of Case Studies For Analysis 90 3.3.1 Why Use Case Studies? 90 3.3.2 Criteria For Selecting Case Studies 91 3.3.3 Why Multiple Case Studies? 91 3.4 STEP 3 : Analyse Step 2 Findings To Identify Principles 93 3.5 STEP 4 : Create Edutainment Model 96 3.5.1 Methodological triangulation 96 3.5.2 What is a Model? 97 3.6 STEP 5: Designing Teaching Materials 98 3.6.1 Structuring The Design process 99 3.7 STEP 6 : Evaluate Model: Student and Lecturer Peer Feedback 101 3.7.1 Part 1: Evaluating Student Trial Feedback 101 vii 3.7.1.1 DS1 Official Student Assessment Statistics 104 3.7.1.2 DS2 Official Student Annual Survey 105 3.7.1.3 DS3 Researcher Questionnaire 106 3.7.1.4 DS4 Researcher Interviews 106 3.7.1.5 DS5: Lecturer’s Personal Statement 108 3.7.1.6 DS6: Official Student Attendance Statistics 109 3.7.2 Part 2 : Evaluating Lecturer Peer Feedback 109 3.8 Overall Weightings Given To All Data Sources 110 CHAPTER 4: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 112 4.1 STEP 1 : Theoretical Findings 112 4.1.1 The 5 Entertainment Themes 113 . 4.1.2 PPP (Presage-Process-Product) model 113 4.1.3 DPK (Discipline-specific Pedagogical Knowledge) 114 4.1.4 Feedback 114 4.1.5 Andragogy 115 4.2 STEP 2: Select Case Studies For Analysis 116 4.2.1 Criteria for Selecting Case Studies 116 4.2.2 Data Sources For Each Case Study 118 4.3 STEP 3 : Case Study Analyses using PRESAGE-PROCESS-PRODUCT 119 4.3.1 Case Study Coding: Presage-Process-Product 119 4.3.2 Analysis Of Case Study Results: Presage-Process-Product 120 4.4 STEP 4: Create Edutainment Model Using PRESAGE-PROCESS-PRODUCT 123 4.4.1 PROCESS of Model Creation 124 4.4.2 PRODUCT of process of Model Creation 126 4.5 STEP 5 Create Teaching Materials Using PRESAGE-PROCESS-PRODUCT 127 4.5.1 PRESAGE in the Class-Based Experimental Trial of the Draft Model 128 4.5.2 PROCESS in the Class-Based Experimental Trial of the Draft Model 128 viii 4.5.3 PRODUCT in the Class-Based Experimental Trial of the Draft Model 129 4.5.3.1 Artefact 1 : Lecture-plan 130 4.5.3.2 Artefact 2 : Lecture Notes 131 4.5.3.3 Artefact 3 : Tutorial Notes 135 4.5.3.4 Artefact 4 : Assessment Specifications 136 4.5.3.5 Artefact 5 : Formative and Summative Feedback Artefact 137 4.6 STEP 6: Part 1: Collect and Analyse Feedback data Sources 137 4.6.1 Data Collection and Analysis of Student Trial Data: Six Sources 137 4.6.1.1 Data Source DS1: Official University Questionnaire 138 4.6.1.2 Data Source DS2: Official University Assessment Statistics 139 4.6.1.3 Data Source DS3: Researcher Questionnaire 140 4.6.1.4 Data Source: DS4: Researcher Interview Of Students 142 4.6.1.5 Data Source DS5: Lecturer’s Personal Statement 144 4.6.1.6 Data Source DS6: Student Attendance Statistics 147 4.6.1.7 Demographic Cross-Referencing 147 4.6.1.8 Gender 147 4.6.1.9 Students Without English as First Language 149 4.7 STEP 6: Part 2 : Data Collection and Analysis of Lecturer Peer Feedback 149 4.7 Lecturer Peer Trial Feedback 150 4.7 Lecturer Peer Conference Feedback 152 CHAPTER 5 : DISCUSSION 155 5.1 Research Shortcomings 155 5.1.1 Rationale for this Work 155 5.1.2 Absence of Current Cybersecurity Practices amongst Case Studies 156 5.1.3 Subjectivity and Interpretation Bias 157 5.1.4Limited Independent Appraisal of Final Model 158 5.1.5 Limitation of Time-triangulation to only Two Years 159 5.2Alternative Explanations 160 5.3 Surprises 162 5.4 The Future