Assignment 2 constituted the build up of a learning process, and assignment 3 was the creation of a learning product. The effort that we invested to make our Introductory Module facilitated the build of our Content Module. Creating the content for our poetry module was fun. It is the part I enjoy most as a classroom teacher and to build this unit in collaboration with others was very satisfying.

The continued work that we invested into this OER highlighted the degree to which a good online course is tightly integrated in its learning objectives, instructional activities, and assessments given. There are so many pieces to consider. In a group, I found that the constant discussions we had ensured that the choices we made could be well-rationalized by both research and common sense. Working independently can often be faster, but I found that I wanted to be more careful and thoughtful about the ideas I presented. It wasn’t good enough to share an okay idea, I only wanted to present and suggest good ideas.

Working in Edge EdX was the second train of thought that has run through my mind for the past month. Even though I consistently engaged with the online LMS, I still feel like an absolute beginner in its application. Edge EdX is a comprehensive and in many ways complicated application. It’s sleek and streamlined appearance give the impression that work within it should be simple, but it is not. I also found that my participation in several MOOC’s has given my the idea of what it might be possible to create in EdX, but I am without the skills and knowledge to replicate that (easily) for my own purposes.

More personally, I would have to say that both the Introductory and Content Module projects felt like very big mountains to climb. I am grateful that I took on these expeditions with a team of skilled mountaineers. Kirsten was a leader and consistently led us along the most efficient and research-based path. Melissa was the outdoor explorer who brought us all the cool, new gadgets and who knew how to use them properly. Jenny was the team member who had us double check our maps and be sure of ourselves before moving on. Each of these fine educational adventurers deserves a full five stars for their collaborative efforts.

In many ways, I think ETEC565A was structured in the way I visualized all my MET courses would be structured. Before beginning my journey three years ago, I expected that every MET class would drill me through a variety of technologies and applications in hopes of determining what systems had value, and how different systems could or would achieve different pedagogical and evaluative objectives. Now, at the other end of my MET journey, I understand that this has not been the point of the program. The MET program, overall, has pointed me towards frameworks for analysis and theories that can help me to use the best technologies for each unique context. Still, this course in particular, did try to put me through my paces technologically. I succeeded in some ways, and have continued learning to undertake in other ways. I now see that my original thoughts on what a course in the MET program would be, would have been too much for each course. And I think this course attempted to achieve more than was possible (at least for me) in one course.

In the description of my anticipated Flight Path I used the course title to visualize my learning. I wanted to improve my ability to select, design, and apply learning technologies. I have come to understand that the selection of technologies is at the root of effective pedagogy. The choice of a tool (using SECTIONS within either an ADDIE or agile design model) will determine what can later be achieved with that tool. I have also come to realize that both the restriction of choice, and the overabundance of choice can be difficult to navigate. My school board uses Google Apps for Education and Desire2Learn and in this regard choices have been made for me. I will need to work within the restrictions of those selections.

In terms of design, despite my intentions, I did not spend any time exploring how Inquiry Based Learning and LMS’s could work together. To incorporate Inquiry based learning into a learning management system would have been the synthesis and evaluation of many pieces of the puzzle. Unfortunately, I was too busy managing my learning at the other end of Bloom’s continuum, learning how to navigate an LMS and learning how to choose effective tools. Having attempted (without successfully building) an online course, it is clear that at this time I am better left to integrate tools individually rather than determine how to build them into one comprehensive course. I know that I am capable of building an online course; but I am now aware of how much time this can take. This connects significantly to my final point. In my flight path I had made the suggestion that I would be looking at a variety of LMS’s. In reality, I barely scratched the surface in terms of being knowledgeable about one online LMS.
These three pieces; my ability to select effective technologies and my improving ability to apply and design effective technologies, show me that I should continue to practice the implementation of effective instructional uses of technology in a blended classroom. My notions of moving towards a Google-based certification was laughable; I had no time to do anything but read up on that process. This is a certification I can pursue once I am consistently using technology in the classroom.

But all is not lost, I gained much from ETEC565A.

I became aware of the variety of online, cloud-based LMS’s. I believe that given the financial concerns and constraints faced by school boards, this will become the simplest way for schools to access storage and technologically advanced learning platforms. However, I have also learned that these platforms comes with significant privacy issues that must be resolved prior to asking students to use them and that, again, the use of a platform that only offers a specific set of tools can only afford certain resultant types of learning. These must be aligned to the learning objectives at hand. Working in Edge EdX was interesting, but it was difficult and time consuming. The MOOC’s that I have accessed personally within EdX had me believing that it was a slick and simple system – but it is not. A strong understanding about the behind-the-scenes features, uses, and coding of these programs is essential.

The two elements of ETEC565A that contributed the most to my learning were the discussion forum questions and the group work in which I engaged.

I have always found, and this course is no exception, that I learn so much from my colleagues in the discussion forums. Some students are better thinkers than me, some are divergent thinkers to me, some have more experience in a given area, and some students are in left field. Each has something interesting to offer on a topic and something that helps me to assess and grow my own understanding of a topic. Interestingly, I also like to assess my own reactions to my peers, their writing, and their shared experiences because it helps me to better understand learning and learners in general. Seeing a breadth of learners amongst my own class reminds of the diversity amongst the students I teach. It’s wonderful to be a part of constantly evolving social community.
Working in a group for Assignments 2 and 3 was also very satisfying. I always feel pushed to achieve more and explore more when working as a part of a group. Despite my strong affinity for collaborative projects, I think Assignments 2 and 3 should be completed individually, but with specifically-assigned cohort members for formative feedback along the way. By the time we had submitted our Assignment #3, any formative feedback that could have changed the direction of our project was irrelevant. More direction from other students working on the same project would have been relevant and worthwhile.

The result of the discussion forums, the collaborative projects, and this course in general, show me that rigour and a tight cohesion between what you want to achieve and how you’ll assess the achievement are vital. I think this course aimed to incorporate too many elements. While I found it difficult to choose one LMS to work within, I know that I would be dismayed if I were told which LMS to choose. Paralysis by choice is nothing new in the digital age, and the more I experience it personally, the more I can help my students to know how to navigate endless choices.
But again, rigour and tightly connected learning activities and assessments must drive learning, and I am keen to continue to use technology – well-selected, well-designed, and well-applied technology – to do so.

One of the first bits of jargon I learned in the MET program was ‘affordance’. I was taught swiftly and deeply that an affordance was not a tool, not a convention, nor something that could be done. Rather, an affordance was an “actionable propert[y] between the world and an actor” (Gibson, 1977, as cited in Norman, 1999, p.39.)  Affordances can be both perceived and real, are a function of design, and  “reflect the possible relationships among actors and objects: they are properties of the world” (Norman, 1999, p.42).

Group work involves relationships. It asks colleagues to connect with one another, to extend one’s ideas and thoughts towards a goal, and to trust that others have your best interests at heart. When everything goes smoothly, group work affords many wonderful properties to learning. Group work affords improved brainstorming and idea generation. Group work affords relationship building. Finally, group work affords a wonderful sense of belonging in the co-creation of knowledge. These were all the very tangible results of my group work in the development of our Introductory Module. Members were each committed to the goal of the assignment and to its logical production and presentation. They were thoughtful and clever as they tried to navigate new systems. We constantly helped one another to figure out features, tips and tricks along the way.

Of course, group work can also have its downsides and in this particular case scheduling, timetables, and time management threatened to do us in. With four people across three time zones, a variety of professional obligations that ramped up for some while others were just getting into the summer and some personal tendencies (mine at the fore) to procrastinate, we required a significant push close to the end to complete the project properly.

Technologically, I found this project to be incredibly useful. I moved towards some of the goals initially listed in my Flight Path. Specifically, I became more aware of the affordances and constraints of online LMS’s. I worked to integrate many Google Apps For Education into those frameworks. This helped me to see what is possible in an online course shell, to see how to use HTML to build some of these features, and to come to recognize what should be possible, whether or not I can figure out how to do it. By activating and embedding Google Hangouts, Google Documents and a Google Calendar, I moved one step closer to being a better Google user, which is relevant to my GAFE-based school board.

However, it does also highlight my woeful inadequacy in the world of coding and HTML. I am capable of searching online for some generic code, and then specifying it to my needs. But I know that this isn’t the most thorough, nor ‘clean’ way, to solve these dilemmas. My interest in using edX edge stemmed from enrolling in (and subsequently abandoning, for the most part) a variety of MOOC’s in edX. Seeing how the system performs at its best is inspiring, even if it is difficult to reach that same level of integration of features, course content, content and affordances.

I am looking forward to building out our Content Modules next, but first I will take a short moment to look up from my computer and see the beauty of summer around me. This should hopefully inspire more poetic words as we take on teaching poetry to students in grade 8.

References

Norman, D.  (1999). Affordances, Conventions and Design. Interactions, 6 (3), 38-41.

The workout scrawled on the whiteboard at my gym last week asked for 100 DU’s. These are double unders, a skipping style where the rope goes around twice for every time you jump off of the ground. These are not a strength of mine. I can manage a few double unders here and there, but I lack the rhythm, the stamina and the finesse to crank out dozens at a time. Many of my workout pals can do these, dozens at a time, with ease. As I asked my trainer how many single unders I should do to modify the workout, a friend looked at me with a spark in her eye and checked in with me,

“You can do some double unders, right? I’ve seen you.” I admitted that I could do one, or two, but that it wasn’t pretty. “Well, if you can do them, you should keep trying. Just do fewer.”

Hmm… How could I argue with that logic? I do want to improve my double unders, and I know that I can do a few. So I agreed to try.

As you can imagine (or perhaps you can’t, because you’re too smart to waste your time doing DU’s), I lashed myself a lot in the next twelve minutes. But I did reach a milestone. I figured out the rhythm of one double under followed by one single under, followed by another double under, and another single under. I’d love to report that I managed dozens, but I probably ended up being able to do about A dozen. Regardless, it was more DU’s than I’ve ever done in my life.

This course is pushing me in the same direction. I’ve had logins and access to a few LMS / elearning platforms for a while, but I haven’t invested the time to get better at using them. That is happening now. My interests are aligned with the curriculum I am trying to absorb and I am making more time to work in these online environments. This course has also given me the opportunity (read: pushed me) to learn about Connect and Moodle in a Blackboard Collaborate Session, and to add a comment to Bates’ ebook. These are not activities in which I would likely engage if not for the desire to maximize my learning opportunities at hand.

I also find people to be extremely motivating. When I see another person’s interest or passion for a topic it really encourages me to join in and get similarly enthused about either the same topic, or something I find equally interesting. A small piece of that motivation could be equated with trying to keep up. But I’m okay with that. I like to find the big thinkers, those with the big picture in mind, and run alongside them to collaborate, to share our journeys, and to push one another. In this course in particular it has hopefully led to a group for the second and third projects and for a side project I have joined (but, admittedly, may or may not complete.)

My group for Assignment 1 was a compelling mix of personalities and strengths. We worked together very efficiently. It is a trait within a group project for which I am always grateful. We met face-to-face to begin the collaborative process, and we stayed in fairly constant email contact through the duration of our time working together. Our comments on our Google doc numbered in the 1000’s (okay, okay, there were only dozens of comments) and I felt I was pushed along by the group to learn more about Moodle. On reflection, I feel I could have pushed my group further by being more emphatic about my desire to contrast Moodle with Eliademy. This is the prime time to explore and to play with different platforms. But for the record, I had plenty to learn with one LMS in hand. I am a big fan of group work. Only once in my MET career has it gone sideways. Working with Chris, Jenny, Melissa, and Stephen was interesting and rewarding and if this is their letter of reference, I would happily work with each of them again.

And maybe later, when we go outside to play, we can work on our DU’s together.