Flight Path Précis
It is interesting to look back and take stock of what I’d hoped to accomplish, and then reflect on where I am now. Largely, I’ve accomplished what I hoped to do. The pleasant surprises are the little things that occurred spontaneously and unplanned, the collateral incidental learning that always seems to take place just at the right time, and the connections and ‘uh-huh’ moments where a shared experience or insight from a classmate helped solidify or expand my understanding of a topic or issue. There’s also comfort in shared experiences and renewed enthusiasm when a group of motivated people with common interests work together.
The area I continue to struggle with relates to institutional support of educational technology. I’ve addressed this where relevant throughout this reflective piece.
Module 1 (Including e-Learning Toolkit Experiences)
The course began with a noteworthy caution from Bates and Poole (2003), warning us not to become obsessed with the latest innovation or techno-solution. They suggest that it is more practical to keep focused on the task at hand, education, and plan our work around valid pedagogical frameworks. Chickering (1987), offers sound practices that apply regardless of the learning platform.
The warning is well heeded, as I look around my office at the old books (by computer standards) dealing with the latest computer trends. It is almost laughable, yet for some reason I continue to explore the latest innovation and routinely download demo software. Perhaps I’m seeking that magic tool like the elusive “how to teach manual” that we all hoped was out there.
There’s nothing wrong with playing around with software and trying new things, yet we need to be cognizant of the educational merits of making things flash around on screens just for their novel attributes.
By paying attention to Bates and Poole’s (2003), SECTIONS framework and well as Chickering’s (1987) seven principles, we can focus our efforts more holistically in areas that serve to improve the cause, while also meeting the interests of other stakeholders, like the student, the institution, and the community at large.
Module 1 required us to reflect on our own needs and expectations as we progressed through the course in the form of a Flight Path. This was done in a WordPress blog that was also new for me. Adding to the collection of my books, I ordered WordPress for Dummies to find out how to set up the blog. This distraction prompted me to set up a test blog on WorldPress.com to experiment with some of the interesting functionity described in the book. I did this externally as I worried that I might mess up my UBC blog if I played around too much in the production environment. While learning about WordPress, I became interested in other blog software and ended up setting up a Blogger account, which led to further distraction. The point here is that I can really relate to Bate’s and Poole’s warning not to obsess with the tools and lose sight of the task at hand.
Module 2 (Including e-Learning Toolkit Experiences)
Module two focused on LMS’s, something I’ve had a little past experience with. I started using WebCT several years ago, however, the intent was simply to augment and support the face to face courses that I teach to college students. This involved mostly setting up content pages, doing simple quizzes, using the assignment boxes, and entering marks in the grade book. Up until now, I’ve never designed or taught a fully on-line course.
In the new year, I’m going to moonlight for another college and design up to four new on-line courses using the Blackboard LMS which is hosted by Ontario Learn, consortium of Ontario community colleges. While Moodle is not BlackBoard, I found the process of exploring Moodle immensely helpful. While many of the Moodle features are similar to WebCT, it was interesting to compare the differences and not only explore different ways to achieve the same thing but also drop old patterns and pick up new ones.
New to me was exposure to LMS synchronous collaborative tools like Wimba. I was familiar with LMS text based chat features but had never used web-conferencing within an LMS.
This prompted me to explore and test Elluminate web conferencing software within my own institution, and ironically, I discovered that Elluminate and Wimba recently partnered.
At the same time as I have been taking this course, I’ve also been taking an on-line course (required as part of my Ontario Learn facilitator training called Designing and Authoring Online Courses ( AL-TAC005). This course is delivered via the Blackboard LMS, which is the one I will be using to develop my new courses.
This tandem learning experience has been really beneficial in helping me better understand the basic functionality and differences among LMS’s. It has also been useful to keep me grounded in the theoretical frameworks (Perkins & Pfaffman (2006), Panettierri( 2007)), and to think about best practices and tools rather than fixate on the software or platform.
What seems significant about my learning experience with LMS’s is what may be “hidden” from the teacher/course developer. Certain functionality might be switched off so that teachers are not aware of what the LMS is capable of doing. This was the case in my own organization, which did not promote voice or video functionality.
Getting back to the other course, as a learner, I found the Blackboard environment quite stale and static. The course to teach on-line teachers did not encourage any kind of collaboration and did not cover any aspects of interactivity. It seems the scope, at least within the Ontario Learn environment, is to pump out curriculum by turning face to face courses into on-line ones by simply moving content ( text ) on-line. I have to acknowledge that this bothered me quite a bit, but is representative of how many institutions see on-line learning.
As an endnote to this portion of my reflection, I recently received exposure to the back-end of the BlackBoard LMS (v.9) during the 1.5 hour training session that my “moonlight” college gave me. When the trainer realized that I was interested in LMS’s she began showing me a number of new BlackBoard plug-ins that seem to offer a lot more in the way of interactivity and social media capacity. She did, however, caution me that it is best to stick with the basics and that Ontario Learn prefers the use of text based materials, preferably in .pdf format!
This is somewhat comical, given the very different approaches taken between the two courses I’m enrolled in now. The guidelines I’ve been offered in one course contradict with those in another. For example, in this course’s Course Introduction page, under the assignments section for the Moodle course site project, learners are explicitly warned not to “populate with a preponderance of attached files”. It is probably not hard to guess which course one I’m taking more seriously.
The opportunity to learn more about LMS’s and the chance to explore Moodle has been highly beneficial to me. There was a wonderful balance between theory and practice in this segment of the course.
Module 3
Prior to this module, my understanding of interactions as they relate to on-line learning was limited to the user interface with the software. Instead of emphasizing on the button pressing and noise making interactions that learners can experience, this module focused on the learning and teaching aspect of interaction, those among student and teacher, student to student, and student to content. Also explored were the lenses under which these interactions could be focused: learner centred, knowledge centred, content-centred, or community centred. While heavy in theory, this module helped me discover a new meaning and appreciation for the term interaction.
Anderson (2008), provided us with a lot of information and examples to illustrate various interactions and tools that can be used to support learning in a variety of contexts and levels of understanding. Rather than espouse the virtues of one method over the other, Anderson offered that the important task was to match the appropriate Semantic web tool to the learning context at hand.
Much of my face-to face teaching (applied college courses), has been knowledge centred. I found it quite interesting to consider the community centered lens as it pertains to on-line learning and how good practices can lead to an effective learning community. As an on-line student, I’ve witnesses first-hand, failed attempts to build community among learners despite substantial efforts to engage us in collaboration. Anderson (2008), describes the need to establish “ a sense of belonging, trust, expectation of learning, and commitment to participate” (p.51). I was impressed that he acknowledges that there is no “ single environment that responds to all learners needs” (p.52).
I was quite accepting of Anderson’s (2008) position that on-line educators need to find balance among the learner-centred, content-centred, knowledge-centred, or community-centred lenses and that on-line teachers can “do so by developing a repertoire of on-line learning opportunities that are adaptable to diverse contextual and student needs (p.66).
Anderson (2008), proposes a model for online teaching that encompasses and overlaps three presences: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. I was impressed by the ways in which he explained teachers can be present in an on-line course. This presence goes far beyond direct instruction. It has inspired me to resist the notion that creating on-line courses is just a matter of loading content. I wonder how far my moonlighting career will last if I’m already planning to deviate from the blueprint?
The component on feedback and assessment may have had the most impact on me throughout the course. Gibbs and Simpson (2004), provided me with significant reflective fodder as I was able to connect with the many scenarios and examples they provided. Too often, learners get important feedback too late, often only after the course is over. A number of on-line learning tools seem to offer valuable ways to provide supportive formative feedback. This feedback can also be provided more quickly, providing learners with the ability to make adjustments while it still matters to them.
Studies reviewed by Gibbs and Simpson (2004), revealed that a number of students simply play the assessment game to the detriment of learning. This kind of activity defeats the purpose of education and promotes lower level learning rather than real understanding, and the ability to transfer knowledge into new learning situations.
What I take from this is the need to consider ways to provide more timely and useful feedback to learners and increase the levels of assessment to go beyond simple recall.
Module 4 Social Media (Including e-Learning Toolkit Experiences)
The topic of social media in on-line learning is currently quite popular. Traditional LMS discussion forums are rigid and time consuming. On the fly, instant messaging applications like Twitter allow learners to engage others interested in similar topics much easier and more conveniently, and work with a number of different mobile devices.
The widespread use and acceptance of social media by the public has caused academics to explore possible learning opportunities and the educational benefits that might be harnessed from the phenomenon.
Young adults, especially, are spending a lot of time interacting with others via social media tools like Facebook and Twitter. It is so pervasive that social media competes with instructor attention inside the classroom and out. Michael Weches’s (2008), project poignantly revealed how much time his students allocate to social media. The challenge appears to be how to package and present learning opportunities in a way that social media users would want to interact with it. A key feature of social media seems to be choice. The user can choose what they want to talk about, listen too, who to interact with, when to quit and so on.
Rather than a captive audience in a traditional classroom, learning with social media seems unstructured and unpredictable, characteristics that many educators are not comfortable with.
Unlike some e-learning tools that might require requisite skills before learners can engage, most students are likely already using some form of social media. We, as educators, need to understand how to adapt our materials and instructional strategies to use it. This may be quite challenging, as in a way, the special value of social media tools might diminish as its use becomes more mainstream and possibly oversaturated.
In my practice, I’m interested in learning more about RSS feeds and the use of tags to help learners access relevant topics quickly and to help them explore ways to research topics, expand their perspectives and learn to keep up to date with topics they find interesting. I’ve had students subscribe to news alerts in the past but see a lot more potential if I can learn more about how feeds and tagging works.
The use of Wikis is also something I’m interested in building into my personal toolkit of e-learning strategies. My only past experience with Wikis has been my own personal use of Wikipedia, and experiences with different educational perspectives as to whether or not they are valuable and reputable sources for learning. I’ve taken courses, where instructors do not allow students to use Wikis as sources, and others where it is encouraged. As a collaborative learning tool, it seems valuable. Part of the learning process is to be able to discern the validity of information sources and make choices about how information is absorbed. The use of wikis can be positive in the context that learners are encouraged to develop their critical thinking skills and help shape their perspectives more globally.
Blogging as a social media and learning tool seems like a good way to encourage reflective practices and helps learners find communities with similar interests. The emphasis on writing may limit its validity to the type of learners who enjoy this practice. Like Downes (2004), I wonder how many students who are forced to use a reflective blog, will continue to do so, once a course is over.
In the past, I’ve had students keep paper learning journals and portfolios, I’m interested in having my students develop these activities on-line using blogs/e-portfolios.
Remixing and Mashups appear to be a great way to convey ideas in a fun way. Visual and oral messages are often remembered in more detail than simple text, and music and video are something most young adults are used to interacting with. The technical skills needed to engage in remixing and mash-ups are no longer complex, and as the number of free Web 2.0 authoring tools expands, the educational opportunities now seem within reach.
I enjoyed seeing what other learners in the class did with their storytelling assignments, and have bookmarked Alan Levine’s 50 Web 2.0 Ways to Tell a Story site for further reference.
A personal dilemma I encountered with remixing and mashup’s involves intellectual property and copyright issues. My dilemma, and one likely shared by others, involves a concern for protecting and giving credit for the work of others, especially in the academic sense.
Many teachers are vehemently opposed to anything that they perceive as plagiarism. The challenge it seems, is how to engage learners in creative processes that build on the established works of others in order to convey new or enhanced understanding. Lamb (2007), offers the argument that in order to be considered relevant, academic papers have to be built around ideas that have been peer reviewed in previous academic papers. In a way, is this really so much different than remixing and mash-ups? When mashing and remixing, learners are attempting to created something new or different from something that already exists.
It seems the key point is that bodies of work used in the remixes or mash-ups should not be portrayed as original work in the new piece.
Open-source repositories, like the Creative Commons, encourage the responsible use of content sharing. These sources offer learners the ability to explore previous works in conjunction with sound principles of fair use in education.
The debate around intellectual property and copyright is far beyond the scope of my influence. What I need to be wary of are the principles of original work and how to operate and offer learning experiences within the confines of the law.
Canada’s new Copyright Bill C-32 has raised a number of concerns for educators. Some of them seem almost ludicrous, like the notion that certain on-line materials may need to be destroyed 30 days after the end of a course. This debate is likely to continue and become more intense. It is something that I need to stay in touch with.
Module 5
Multimedia offers rich and interactive approaches that appeals to certain types of learners, especially younger adults who are quite comfortable with these tools. The challenge is to identify the appropriate tool for the right kind of learning context, in conjunction with understanding our learners’ characteristics, our own limitations (designer skills), and the host institution’s ability to support and resource the programming needs. Again, we were reminded of the SECTIONS framework that focuses on a holistic approach.
While this seems fine in theory, I have a somewhat jaded perspective based on past experiences in my own institution. On the surface, the college purports to champion innovation, yet they offer very little support and opportunity for faculty to try new things. For example, faculty are not permitted to install software on their office desktop computers. It takes approximately six weeks once an install request is made to our IT department before it happens. Since the process is so long and cumbersome, many potential innovators simply become frustrated and give up. Those who persist, typically invest their own time and money, use their own equipment, and then later discover that the institution is unwilling or unable to support proposed innovations. This is a partially why I’ve opted to moonlight in order to expand my horizons. It seems odd, yet some institutions actually chase away innovation while at the same time claim to support it.
Getting back to multimedia, these tools are becoming easier to use for teachers with limited time and technical expertise. I see my role as an educational technology practitioner involving mentoring, coaching, and facilitating on order to promote and encourage expanded use of multimedia in education.
Final Thoughts and Next Steps
It is hard to think of a single component of this course that has not been relevant to me. The course has been very practical, offering abundant hand-on access to the tools that we’ve been encouraged to explore. The theory has attempted to ground us and serve as a reminder to keep the theme of education front and centre. Bates and Poole’s (2003) early warning has been clearly understood but may be hard to follow as I like to try out new technologies as they become available.
While I didn’t learn any secret formulas or find a guiding light that will lead me towards the elusive mastery of teaching, I didn’t really expect to. I did, however, gain an appreciation for some of the theory and framework that supports on-line learning. I was also able to further develop skills with certain learning technologies and gained additional insights from the group collaboration opportunities that I was presented with. Although a number of my peers were teaching at primary and secondary levels, their perspectives and feedback was often quite relevant to my adult teaching environment.
On the work front, as a curriculum consultant, I will likely be involved in an upcoming LMS review (our WebCT license expires soon). I’ve also been asked to take an inventory of our current alternative delivery processes and will likely be involved with a committee to explore ways to increase the number of hybrid and on-line course offerings at the college. I’ll be sure to oppose anyone who simply suggests that we mass convert courses by putting notes online!
In my role as a curriculum consultant, I’m fortunate to be able to assist other teachers with adopting educational technology. I’m interested in finding tools that are easier to use and less intimidating to some of my colleagues. A number of the Web 2.0 tools explored in this course seem easy to use. I may be able to help some colleagues become interested in exploring these tools for use in their own courses.
In my moonlight career, I will begin work on my four on-line courses for Ontario Learn, and here again, vow to refrain from “populating with a preponderance of attached files”.
From a student perspective, I’ll continue investigating and keeping up to date with e-learning tools. Of immediate interest to me are flash-based development tools like Adobe Captivate. I also want to learn more about RSS feeds and tagging as a way to access related information and keep informed about other subjects of interest.
Having taught in the college system for many years, I do however, remain somewhat skeptical of the opposing characteristics of an institution’s administration and its faculty. While the SECTIONS framework addresses the holistic approach, reality often weighs heavily in favour of financial considerations and the tendency for leadership to look for quick solutions with immediate returns.
It is up to us as educators to perpetuate the cause.
References
Alan Levine. (2007). “50 Web 2.0 Ways to Tell a Story.” Accessed online 10 November 2010. http://cogdogroo.wikispaces.com
Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a Theory of Online Learning. In: Anderson, T. & Elloumi, F. Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University. Accessed online 18 October 2010 http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008_Anderson-Online_Learning.pdf
Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Chapter 4: a Framework for Selecting and Using Technology. In Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. (pp. 77-105). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39 (7), 3-7.
http://www.aahea.org/bulletins/articles/sevenprinciples1987.htm
Copyright Act Needs Changes http://president.athabascau.ca/messages/index.php?id=54 retrieved November 20, 2010
Downes, S. (2004). Educational Blogging. Educause Review. September/October 2004 Accessed online 03 November 2010. http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume39/EducationalBlogging/157920
Gibbs, G. and Simpson, C. (2005). “Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning.” Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Accessed online 1 November 2010 http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf
Lamb, B. (2007). Dr. Mashup; or, Why Educators Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Remix. EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 42, no. 4 (July/August 2007): 12–25. Accessed online November 18 2010 http://www.educause.edu/ER/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume42/DrMashuporWhyEducatorsShouldLe/161747
Panettieri, J. (2007). Addition by subtraction. University Business, August, 58-62. Accessed online 07 October 2010. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=167584721
Perkins, M., Pfaffman, J. (2006). Using a Course Management System to Improve Classroom Communication. Science Teacher, 73(7), 33-37. Accessed online 09 October 2010 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.125.6880&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Wesch, M. (2007) A Vision of Students Today (& What Teachers Must Do). Accessed online 1 November 2010. http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/10/a-vision-of-students-today-what-teachers-must-do/
