Flight Path for Devinder Deol – high school Social Studies teacher with a BC Distributed Learning (DL) school
(image credit – Wikimedia commons)
Professional Context:
Most of the courses I teach are delivered in a fully online format using a Blackboard 9.1 Learning Management system. I have access to an Elluminate virtual classroom and to video production tools such as Jing & Camtasia. We also use software such as Respondus to assist with exam creation and with the production of learning objects. I have the option to design pages using Dreamweaver or the HTML editor in Blackboard. Our school operates on an asynchronous model, so this means that students are within different places in each course at any given time. My Social Studies 11 course utilizes blended learning to bring together students for about 10 hours of face-to-face interaction. Teachers at my school are challenged by large caseloads. Last year, I worked with over 400 students which is twice the teaching load of a British Columbia brick-and-mortar high school educator. In short, I have access to a nice variety of technology at work, but need to use it efficiently to keep my head above water.
Educational Philosophy:
Despite the workload challenges at my current worksite, I wish to utilize constructivist design principles to help guide my work with any LMS. Through my previous work in MET courses, I have come to understand constructivism in the following way: constructivist learning theories posit that knowledge evolves through social negotiation and the viability of individual understandings, that understandings come from our interactions with the environment, and that cognitive conflict or puzzlement is the stimulus for learning (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Savery & Duffy, 1995).
Distributed learning education in BC has evolved out of a correspondence school tradition, and some of BC’s foundational Distributed Learning schools continue to operate as correspondence centers. In many (though not all) of these correspondence courses, the underlying mindset was that a student needed to memorize certain facts or skills and regurgitate them on a summative evaluation. This legacy has carried over into present-day online DL courses, some of which focus heavily on preparing students for exams. In such contexts, learners often work in isolation. Updated versions of DL courses usually include a great deal of cutting-edge media and innovative web design, but the problem of learners working in isolation is still very prevalent. Through research and experience, we now know that learning is a social process. As Chickering & Ehrmann (1996) state, “good learning, like good work, is collaborative and social…Working with others often increases engagement in learning. Sharing one’s ideas and responding to others’ improves thinking and deepens understanding” (p. 3).
The Challenge
It’s difficult to implement constructivist principles in asynchronous online classes that are overcrowded with students, however, I don’t believe that it is impossible. The powerful educational benefits of interactivity and social engagement are well documented, so the effort towards these elements will be well worth it (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn 2007).
Using a framework to help with decisions about which technology tools to employ seems highly appropriate. The SECTIONS model put forward by Bates & Poole (2003), puts considerable emphasis on identifying the needs & capabilities of students and aligning those with technology choices that best facilitate teaching and learning.
In reviewing our recent Etec 565A course readings, it became apparent to me that I’d like to use my upcoming work in Moodle to help build greater variety in the ways that my students can plan, document, track, and represent their learning. An obvious method of doing this is to build in more choice in terms of the types of projects and assessments that students complete. A less obvious way is to build pathways into my online courses, so that each student has a distinct set of options to guide their learning. Each pathway would expose the student to different group of learning objects, and different types of activities. I don’t know if I will have the time or expertise with Moodle by the end of this course to reach the point of building pathways, but I’d like to, at the very least, become initiated with this functionality.
Bates & Poole (2003) cite Steven Stahl (1999) who concluded that the assessment of student learning styles and use of this information to shape instructional methods has surprisingly little impact on learning. Despite this finding, I think it’s important to survey students and discover more about their learning styles & preferences for what they would like to do in a course. At a minimum, such efforts are likely to engage students and help me to learn more about them. This is one reason why I would like to become familiar with the options for polling students through online quizzes, or with the tools of a Moodle Live classroom. Additionally, I would like to beef up my video & audio production skills. Notwithstanding the comments from Stahl (1999) about learning style, I’ve noticed that students really enjoy lessons that include clear and short clips of audio and video. I would like to look at options for better delivering such media in my online courses.
I am also interested in learning more about the organization of webpages and the techniques I can use to increase student interest and improve accessibility for hearing or visually impaired students.
Additionally, I would like to examine options for getting students to communicate more with one-another in a LMS context. This could occur through the blogging or wiki functions of Moodle, or through some of the other Moodle communication tools and 3rd party integrations.
In summary, I’m very interested in examining functionality within Moodle that helps to build engagement and interactivity, and does so in a way that doesn’t overburden overworked teachers like myself. I’d like to examine what options I have with a LMS to enable students to construct their knowledge & share this learning in a manner that provides students with rich feedback, but doesn’t rely upon me, the teacher, to be the sole source of that feedback. Reflecting upon this flight path, I believe that I have some lofty aspirations for upcoming coursework, and am hopeful that I will soon reach some of these targets.
References
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. and Ehrmann, S.C. (1996). “Implementing the Seven Principles: Technology as Lever,” American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49(2), p. 3-6. Retrieved from http://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm
Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Educational communications and technology (pp. 170-199). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Hmelo-Silver, C.,Duncan, R.G., &Chinn,C.A.. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). EducationalPsychologist, 42(2), 99–107. Retrieved from http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/hmelo_ep07.pdf
Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135-148).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Stahl, S. (1999). Different strokes for different folks: a critique of learning styles. American Educator. Fall1999, pp. 27-31. Retrieved from http://home.centurytel.net/msv/Documents/Learning-Styles-Different%20Strokes.pdf