Assignment #4: Summary
1) One of the most difficult things in any second-language learning is that the instructions for activities, assignments and even resource materials can require a higher level of language proficiency than the actual learning goals of the lesson. I want students to feel at ease when accessing course materials and working on assignments. I do not want the tools I use, like an LMS, to get in the way of my actual learning goals. This was always at the forefront of my considerations in the instructional design of my Moodle course.
I realize that there were underutilized affordances of the technology in my course design, such as video, animations, and exciting and appealing graphical content. In addition, there are a rich set of apps and tools that can be incorporated into an online course, but I had to consider how easy they would be to use by my students. Again, the purpose of technology is to improve the way content is delivered, but when the technology gets in the way of the learning objectives, it becomes a hindrance, not an affordance for learning. Another limitation I faced was the lack of reliable Wi-Fi in some of the more rural areas of my prefecture.
This course was unique in that I actually had to build something that worked. This is a huge step beyond the theoretical and it was a very daunting task. To guide me in designing a course that can do this, I found the work of Fink (2005) to be tremendously helpful. This content module was developed with this framework in mind, starting with the backwards design principles of putting the learning goals first, and designing the assessment practices to fit the goals of the course.
Another incredibly useful tool in the design and planning of my course was Chickering & Ehrmann’s (1996) seven principles, that outlined the best practices for incorporating aspects of both collaborative and active learning. Finally, the SECTIONS model from Bates (2014) was helpful in covering all of the bases needed in an online learning environment.
2) I was surprised at the heavy reliance on multiple choice quizzes in the Coursera course I reviewed. I decided to include MC questions in my course, but in the future, I would like to change the way they are delivered. I think there may be more opportunities for deeper learning if some of the principles outlined by Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006) could be employed. Specifically, it would be interesting to ask students to reflect on their level of confidence for each answer, before providing them with feedback. This would make MC questions an activity of self-reflection, not only assessment. Also, I think that an online environment might afford the opportunity for students to create their own MC questions, perhaps as part of their experimental design presentation, and upload those to the LMS to engage their classmates in a more student-centered form of assessment.
I believe that videos can be a fantastically useful tool, but when used in second language courses, they may actually impede learning. Students must be able to understand the text and audio in a video, and this can be a daunting challenge for some students. Additionally, there is little control over the flow or speed of the presentation in a video. Pause-Rewind-Play is not a very good method for presenting your material. I wanted to find a platform that would give students more control over the speed of the presentation, as well as letting them jump to specific sections for quick review. I really do feel that Prezi served this purpose well.
Finally, the inclusion of a discussion forum for students to present their experimental design and solicit feedback from peers seems like it would be a great opportunity for collaborative learning. The asynchronous nature of a discussion forum would also afford students the opportunity to think about what they want to say before it becomes part of the public discourse. This is very helpful for students who are shy about their English language skill and want the time to compose their thoughts. I anticipate that this would result in more and better exchange between students, as opposed to face-to-face presentations with question and answer periods.
3) The instructional design projects were very helpful as they broke down into manageable steps the process of creating an online learning environment. We progressed from justifying selection of our platform, to creation of learning goals and objectives, with a focus on backward design as a fundamental design principle. From there we moved to creating our course structure and outline, with an introduction section for new students. Finally, we began the process of putting the course online, first with an outline of the course, and finally by designing a single unit of instruction. This was a very logical process and made the daunting task of actually creating our course more manageable.
This course is radically different from all of the other courses I have taken in MET because we actually CREATE something. Because of this, there needs to be heavy guidance on what is expected/required for each step of the process. I found the terminology to be a bit confusing, because words like “unit” and “module” can mean almost anything, unless they have been defined by example. It would have been good for us to examine a “sample” course that had been created for us. We could take it apart and perform a forensic assessment of the components and functionality that make up good online course design. This would present to us visually and functionally, what is required for a course of this nature.
In every MET course I have taken so far, the Discussion Forums have been a very important learning component of the course. The forums have allowed me to synthesize and reflect on the course materials and learning objectives. I felt that the majority of discussion topics in this course did not serve this purpose, however. Many of the topics were more like FAQ sections, with students utilizing the forum for asking “how do I do this” kind of questions. As this was my first time using Moodle, I did not have the answers for them, and so I did not feel like I could contribute meaningfully to the discussion. Additionally, many topics seemed to only ask us to present our work for review, but this was very different from the kind of discussion that I have seen in all of my other courses. There were a few topics, such as the discussions on social media and authorship rights that sought to engage students in this way, but for the most part, I felt that a discussion forum was not the best choice for this course.
I would also like to suggest replacing the discussion forum for another collaborative experience. Perhaps in addition to the forensic examination of an online course that I mentioned above, students could participate in collectively redesigning or improving a sample course that was incomplete or had design flaws. We could work together to redesign the course to make it work. Along the way, there would be asynchronous discussion about the goals of the design and the elements needed to make it work. This might serve as a better communication and discussion tool, as we would all be participating in the same content. Students would still be required to create their own course, but the discussion component would be centered on a collaborative experience that we could all relate to. It might make discussions about the elements presented in this course more tangible, as well as easier for people to relate to and thus contribute to more meaningfully.
References
Bates, T. (2014). Chapter 8: Choosing and Using Media, the SECTIONS model; Teaching in digital age (online book). Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage
Chickering, A. W., & Ehrmann, S., C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 49(2), 3-6. Retrieved from: http://www.aahea.org/articles/sevenprinciples.htm
Fink, L. D. (2005). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. Retrieved from https://www.deefinkandassociates.com/GuidetoCourseDesignAug05.pdf
McTighe, J., and Wiggins, G. (2004). Introduction: The logic of backward design. Understanding by design: Professional development workbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/books/mctighe2004_intro.pdf
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199-218. Retrieved from: http://www.mcla.edu/Assets/uploads/MCLA/import/www.mcla.edu/Academics/uploads/textWidget/3424.00034/documents/Formative_assessment.pdf