Unit 3 | Assignment 2 Reflections

Posted on by
Reply

Positives:

I thought the readings were very practical and influential towards completion of this assignment. I particularly enjoyed the Jenkins (2004) and Gibbs & Simpson (2005) readings, which helped further consolidate my views on formative assessment. I was quite happy to see some Dylan Williams quotes in latter; I’ve been fortunate enough to see him speak, in person, and align highly with this very knowledgeable man. Conrad’s (2000) Instructional Design reading will prove very useful not only for this course, but serves as a great “How to” manual for online course design in the future.

Second, the learning curve for this assignment was steep and challenging – I mean this in a good way. The best learning becomes of this style of rigor in an assignment framed within one’s Vygotskian ZPD. My knowledge in designing a course within Moodle was nil. I felt that the authentic learning taking place in the backdrop of this assignment made the learning curve smoother. I like that I can apply it to the direct context of my practice, thus motivating me further to get it right and doing the course properly.

Finally, one main benefit of the tech conference that my school just recently hosted (further described below) was that there were quite a few LMS presenters. I was fortunate to attend one on Moodle. My time in this seminar allowed me to feel confident plugging away on the assignment that needed to be created afterwards.

Things that could have been better:

First, this assignment was particularly problematic for me because of the calendar alignment of key events at my school. We were hosting the first annual tech conference in my region and that ate up every spare moment of my time for the previous three weeks organizing and getting ready. Not only was I presenting, but I was also prepping three elementary grade levels of children to present in front of an audience of over 150 adults. The week after this event was book week, which is another ridiculously busy time at our school. All of this was on top of my regular work commitments, including after school activities and coaching.

Secondly, I found the success criteria on the assessment of this assignment to be a bit ambiguous and spent much of my time trying to hash out issues that apparently weren’t being assessed (from Professor’s email after several previous attempts), yet were communicated so in course design. Largely, I had difficulty with access restrictions to my forums and was trying to hash it out on my own and with the professor. To be fair, the professor was trying to help, but the issue has yet to be resolved. Here is the rubric, laid out on the course website for the assignment:

The instructor will be using the following criteria in assessing your assignment:

  1. Whether the introductory module provides the course structure, which is logically coherent and easy to navigate through;
  2. How clear the course learning objectives are translated into the elements of course structure and the introductory module design;
  3. Whether the suggested assessment and communication methods/tools fit the learning objectives, and whether the reasons for using these methods/tools are clearly formulated;
  4. How appealing the overall look of the Introductory Module is, and whether the graphic elements are used appropriately and optimize the learning experience;
  5. Whether the navigation tools and design elements function properly;
  6. Whether the project settings make it accessible to peers in this course section.

Point five and six, in my opinion, directly relate to inaccessibility of forums. I was spending a large amount of time in this area so I could reach the success criteria, yet the way I was given access in Moodle limited me from doing so.

Furthermore, I think it’s a serious flaw in the way that Moodle courses are being designed. I don’t like how we, as ETEC565a students, are lower in the hierarchy in terms of administrators or moderators. I get that synergy in terms of the collating of student resources was a determining factor in the way things are done currently. From the professor’s perspective, it is a much easier way to view everyone’s projects and promote viewership amongst the course. However, Moodle is a free, open-sourced LMS – these are two HUGE advantages. This means that there’s no clear reasons from allowing students in ETEC565a from signing up to their own Moodle accounts and then sharing their course with others, including the professor. Advantages of this would allow creators to update to more current Moodle versions and access to more user-friendly third party skins. Thus, making design, creation and the overall user-interface more visually stimulating and easier to manipulate.

Analysis of a course structure and design

Posted on by
Reply

 

1

LMS: https://lagunita.stanford.edu/ (Stanford Online)

  • Delivery format(s) and the platform(s) implemented to deliver the course. Indicate how the course is scheduled and delivered (on term basis, self-paced, or differently). Whether the course uses one LMS for delivery or combines several platforms?

The course is self-paced, consisting of six, twenty minute lessons. You can start and end the course within the months that it is open (seems to have been open since June, 2014). The course is delivered wholeheartedly through Stanford Online.

  • Course structure. Is the course structure presented visually and logically? Does it resemble a linear story, a hierarchical construction, a net, a circle or something else? Describe whether or not this structure looks pedagogically appropriate for the course?

The course is well designed, following a linear structure that scaffolds the pedagogy for the audience. It seems very appropriate because the course aims to build confidence and skillset in maths.

  • Learning activities and guidelines. What learners are doing for learning, and what are the results of their learning? What digital formats for the course material are used to organize the learning process (texts, video, audio, computer simulations, digital learning objects, or other)? What guidelines regulate the learning process? Whether the content is released gradually (by weeks) or all available from the beginning to the end?

Learners are working through six modules or lessons, that are all available from beginning to end (i.e. not gradually released). Students work through each linear module, which, “combine presentations from Dr. Boaler and a team of undergraduates, interviews with members of the public, cutting edge research ideas, interesting visuals and films, and explorations of math in nature, sport and design” (https://lagunita.stanford.edu/courses/Education/EDUC115-S/Spring2014/about).

Dr. Boaler suggests that only one lesson be done per week, in order for the learning to be consolidated. However, learners may advance at their own pace. Each lesson consists of about 3 to 10 mini-lessons, with each following an objective quiz, followed by a final subjective quiz, asking participants to write down key learning from the module. Each quiz is worth 1 point each. This is all graphically presented on a “Progress” tab, highly visible within the course LMS (see Figure 1.1 below).

Figure 1.1 – Course progress graph

2

 

  • Discussions organization. Whether the discussions are scheduled to be conducted at particular moments in the course or some other organizational mechanism is used? Whether the discussions are on the same site with the course content, or designed on a different platform? Whether the discussions’ tool allows creating multiple threads in one topic, or only one thread per topic? Do you think these differences in the discussions’ tools functionalities influence the results of learning?

Discussions are organized within the LMS, under a self-titled tab, highly visible within the course design. It seems that there are a few “pinned” threads, outlining general procedures and FAQs. However, discussion and rules seem to be very open. There are multiple threads, some relating to course material, others not. There are even multiple threads on the same topic. Much of the discussion is limited to a few words, and since the course seems to be aimed at upper elementary and middle-school students, the discussion appears to need regulating in terms of appropriateness and maturity.

I think it would be better if discussion threads were titled under headings of the mini-lessons within each of the six modules (e.g. “Mathematical Reasoning”). This would organize discourse and discourage redundant posts because respondents could easily navigate to relevant discussion threads. Activities within the modules should require participants to post to the discussion for the response to help promote social inquiry and collaboration. There should be moderation from the instructor (or assistants), if discourse starts lacking in terms of richness, maturity and/or respect for others. Yes, there could also be a “Student Café” section, where more liberal and unrelated postings could be tolerated.

  • Forms of feedback and Evaluation methods. What kinds of assignments, tests, practicums are implemented for evaluating the learning results? Is any certification or other types of recognition procedure implemented?

There is no formal assessment and grading for this course. As mentioned above, there are six modules, each containing 3-10 mini-lessons. After each mini-lesson, there is a respective quiz. All quizzes are one question and are worth one point. The majority are objective (e.g. What is 12 x 15?), however the quiz at the end of each module asks for subjective, reflective thoughts and key learning to be written down. The participant is given a 1point score, regardless. All scores are graphed, represented in Figure 1.1 above. These points are just to reflect personal progress.

In addition, there is a pre and post survey to this course.

There is no formal feedback, either. The course is free, does not count for university credit, yet those who finish it can apply for a completion certificate.

  • Instructor’s involvement. How much the instructor(s) presence is visible in delivering the course material and providing feedback?

The instructor is visible present in some of the instructional videos and course material within the modules, however, the discussions have minimal moderation, if at all. There are no signs of any type of formal feedback from the instructor, either.

Unit 2 | Formulating Learning Goals

Posted on by
Reply

Explore the strategies for developing learning objectives

A Primer on Writing Effective Learning-Centered Course Goals. Robert K. Noyd (DFB) & The Staff of The Center for Educational Excellence (CEE) US Air Force Academy (PDF);

Mager’s Tips on Instructional Objectives.Adapted and excerpted from: Mager, R.F. (1984).Preparing instructional objectives.(2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: David S. Lake. (web-page);

Worksheet: Course schedule,The University of Iowa, ITS (web-page);

Course objectives rubric The University of Iowa, CFT (PDF)

1. Formulate at least three tentative learning objectives, to begin creating your course structure.

2. Add a short description of your course prototype: a title, intended audience, and indicate the course delivery format (fully online, mixed mode, supplement for in-class teaching, etc).

3. Ask for peer feedback: Share ideas and give suggestions about the learning objectives presented here.

Response

Primary Years Programme (PYP) | Unit of Inquiry (UoI): How we express ourselves (HWEO)

Central Idea: Different media allow us to express ourselves and share ideas.

Audience:

A six-week, transdisciplinary unit of inquiry taught to year 3 students in International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) schools.

Delivery Format:

Used to supplement in-class teaching, for both students and teachers alike. Resources can be shared for both stakeholders and assessment can be posted to the LMS to make learning more visible to the greater community (e.g. teachers collaborating in the district, other students from other schools, student relatives, etc.).

Students will be “tuned-in” to a variety of media initially, then, will work in six specialist weekly rotations developing skills in seven different media: Coding, photography, drama, calligraphy, poetry, art and cooking. Afterwards, students will select one to two of their best mediums to display at a gallery held for community stakeholders.

Goals:

Because all learning in the PYP’s Programme of Inquiry (PoI) is conceptual, goals, or lines of inquiry, should be linked to a maximum (depth, not breadth) of three of the IB’s eight, signature conceptual lenses. These lenses could be aligned further with related concepts, but again, the premise is on depth of learning rather than diluting it. Conceptual learning makes learning timeless, transferable and universal – among others (Erickson, 2011).

At the end of this inquiry, students will be able to (BOLDFACE words are conceptual links):

  • Summarize the key features of three different forms of media that people can use to express themselves. (Form – What is it like?)
  • Justify a person’s or group’s motivation to choose a certain medium or media to express themselves (Causation – Why is it like that?)
  • Compare and contrast how media can be interpreted either the same or differently by a large audience (Perspective – What are the different points of view?)

I grabbed most of my verbs from here, which is a great Bloom’s Taxonomy resource, when creating goals, rubrics and more.

person-1245959_1280

Formative Feedback

  1. Are my goals universally understood? If not, what would you change?
  2. Any other additional details missing?

Unit 1 | Discussion 2

Posted on by
Reply

Educational technologies in different organizations: LMS evaluation

Chose an organization which you are familiar with, and evaluate educational technology using Bates’ models ADDIE and Agile Design outlined in Chapter 4: Bates (2014).

1. How informative are these two models for determining whether your organization implements educational technologies in the most effective way?

2. Which of these two models better fit your own preferences in  instructional design?

Consider the evaluation method for educational technologies introduced by Nel, Dreyer and Carstens (2010), and their division between primary and secondary criteria for analysis.

3. Use these criteria to evaluate how well your organization is prepared for implementing educational technologies.

4. What other factors contribute to successful implementation of learning technologies in educational organizations?

Response

Organisation: My school, Suzhou Singapore International School (SSIS)

Both ADDIE and Agile design models are effective criteria for SSIS, considering the size of the organisation. ADDIE is necessary for school-wide platforms, such as our Moodle ran LMS, DragonNet, that connects our staff, student and community learning through our intranet (necessary evil, particularly with China’s Great Firewall).

However, breaking the school down further in its learning technologies, I feel that the grade-to-grade breakdown is more an Agile approach. It is one which better responds to the needs of our learning, which is always changing since transdisciplinary units of inquiry are planned from a conceptual lens that places emphasis on authentic learning within the IB’s Primary Years Programme (PYP).

My own preferential design: Agile

Tania Lattanzio, of Innovative Global Education, who is an expert and global speaker on assessment, says it best: “Any PYP teacher that is planned too far ahead, is not teaching inquiry and is not responsive to the needs of their learners.”

ADDIE is far too regimented and planned ahead to fit within the PYP framework. An Agile approach, with a healthy mix of Understanding by Design (Wiggins & McTighe) and ongoing reflection, is far better suited for the flexibility needed during the phases of inquiry (Kath Murdoch).

Primary & Secondary Criteria Analysis of SSIS

Primary Criteria

  • Learning outcomes: Our elementary edtech team is very open-minded, flexible and responsive to teacher and learner needs. If there is strong links found to the curriculum, then the drive towards making it happen becomes clear in order to sell it to our board of directors, if need be.
  • Active learning: Given the very nature of an IB school, learning grounded in social constructivism and units of inquiry have a conceptual focus. We have no textbooks. Inquiry starts with “tuning in” and establishing what is known to them and building upon that prior knowledge. Harnessing their wonder and big questions is a big element to this.
  • Collaborative learning: Again, social constructivist practice is evident in teacher planning and delivery, but also in student activities. Our current unit of inquiry has a strong conceptual focus on perception. The central idea is, “How media allow us to express ourselves and share ideas.” We are concentrating on how, yes, our own perspective is important, but also how individuals can shape the collective and vice-versa. Some of the richest learning moments for the students has been through the perceptions of their peers, teachers and parents and how it reshapes their own perspectives on what they are learning within each media they have been using to express themselves (e.g. coding, patterning, photography, drama, calligraphy and cooking). Tech plays a pivotal role in all these experiences in the way that we share our ideas with a greater audience (e.g. Scratch: Coding; Cameras: Photography; iMovie: Drama performances; and the server: hosting saved files).
  • Multi-faceted interaction: Technologies within the school allow for individual and shared experiences. Furthermore, they allow for greater global connections through digital portfolios and class blogs. Students can share their creations and peers, parents and others can comment and offer feedback to turn these interactions into formative feedback opportunities to drive learning forward.
  • Multi-faceted interaction of learner differences: Again, boxes being ticked here. A few examples: Translation apps for ESL students on iPads, voice-to-text services on Macbooks for students with disabilities such as dyslexia and the ability to film students whose auditory reflections supersede their written ones.
  • Multi-faceted feedback: WordPress blogs (locally hosted) and shared student Evernote portfolios are our two main ways that we share our learning to the greater world that is a two-way street for formative feedback that has the potential for global reach. Unfortunately, many great platforms have Google scripts attached to them, which means that they would need a VPN to access them behind China’s Great Firewall. To further exacerbate the issue, our school was built upon being the “government approved” international school in our district (i.e. we can’t have an open VPN line for learning). Moral here: Censorship sucks.

Secondary Criteria

  • Access: Our biggest drawback. The Great Firewall (GFW) is extremely limiting in terms of what you can do. You’d be surprised how much content has a Google script attached to it (i.e. Doesn’t work in China). I’ve lost count of the amount of times that I’ve gotten excited about something new to implement in my classroom or share with our edtech committee, yet am shot down as soon as I field test it. Either that, or it works today and is censored tomorrow. Yes, there are similar Chinese equivalents to much of the tech that we, as international educators, are familiar with on a global scale, yet the language barrier of them being all in Mandarin, again, poses a threat to access to all stakeholders within our international school community.
  • Costs: Each division is given a budget, specifically edtech. Generally, if it ticks a bunch of boxes in terms of curriculum alignment and school vision, usually the board green-lights the project. Large benefits of working in a private international school with high tuition fees. Sometimes educating parents on the importance and need for technology that the board initially shuts down for funding also helps persuade projects to approval.
  • Operability: Not that I condone being an “Apple” school (for reasons of corporate branding of young minds), I get it. It synergizes operability and platforms (albeit limiting to an extent) so that scaffolding of function is transferrable for learners of any age. For example, knowing how operate features within Pages, can transfer over to Keynote. But couldn’t this be argued across most platforms nowadays? I’d much prefer our school to be a B.Y.O.D. environment, or even any other corporate brand that doesn’t have its workers committing suicide, locally, as a result of their working conditions bestowed upon them.

What other factors contribute to successful implementation of learning technologies in educational organizations?

  • Leadership: Whether or not they condone the importance of digital technologies and are advocates and model it themselves. This is crucial for approval and sustained direction of professional development in this area. Gatekeepers can be roadblocks.
  • Board of directors: Funding, funding, funding! Can be your greatest ally or biggest roadblock. Their beliefs can determine the state of digital affairs.
  • Bureaucratic red tape: Have I mentioned the GFW?
  • Geographical infrastructure: Does the area you reside in have access to high-speed internet?
  • School culture: Is it one that celebrates risk-taking, inquiry, growth mindsets and lifelong learning? Does it have accountable action for those teachers who are resilient to change?

Unit 1 | Discussion 1

Posted on by
2

Digital-age teaching professionals

Consider the standards presented in the report issued by The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE): Redefining learning in a technology-driven world. June 2016.These are devised to prepare students for work and life in technology-dependent future, that is “empowering students to have a voice and choice in their learning”. Using the criteria developed in the ISTE (2016) document and in the Chickering & Ehrmann (1996) article, consider to what extent these reflect the competencies and skills you practice in your teaching and in your learning.

  1. Which criteria for the technological competencies seem the most informative to you and applicable to your experiences?
  2. What technological competencies are in demand and rewarded in your organization?
  3. What do you see as the biggest challenge for the teachers and the students to professionally succeed in a “digital-age”, in technology-dependent environments?

Response:

Which criteria are the most informative & important for me?

Starting with Chickering & Ehrmann’s (1996)

  • Good practice encourages connections amongst stakeholders: One of tech’s greatest affordances, from a conceptual lens, is connection. It can not only save us time, but break down social and cultural barriers that may not happen in traditional F2F learning. Collaboration can happen in asynchronous or synchronous fashion, regardless of location (yet arguable with censorship – see China). For me, this means greater perspective from cohorts and time savings when considering the lack in commuting before learning.
  • Good practice develops reciprocity and cooperation among students: Big fan of constructivism. Individual accountability is important, but that doesn’t mean that social collaboration can’t be entertained. Children learn better from their peers. Collaboration promotes endless opportunities for anecdotal formative assessment and it develops skills of arbitration, making concessions and working towards a collective goal. Important and authentic life skills.
  • Good practice uses active learning techniques: Learning experiences should always strive to be authentic and contextual. Burn textbooks; they’re the anti-thesis of this. I’m very passionate about the IB’s PYP curriculum and would find it hard to teach in any other model that didn’t focus heavily on conceptual-based inquiry. Sure it requires more work, but engagement and motivation is rarely an issue. I learn so much from every inquiry, too.
  • Good practice gives prompt feedback: Timely, formative feedback is crucial. Tech affords us with 24:7 connections to learning and allows for peers to comment on work to drive learning forward. Yes, these are taught skills, but once developed and implemented, they’re magical. Reflection is such an important part in learning, that is often ignored. Learn. Practice. Reflect. Repeat (with some added dashes of healthy failure and frustration, too).

ISTE (2016):

  • Computational thinking: Huge fan of Seymour Papert. In sum, students should be the boss of their technology and not vice-versa. Constructing and creating ideas is more fun and engaging than following someone else’s agenda. It promotes logical, “out of the box”, problem solving skills. Big fan of “tinkering” and understanding how things work. Break it down, rebuild it. understand it. Recreate or remix it.
  • Social and emotional skills: I’ve been using the hashtag #grit for three years running now in China and was elated to see the ISTE put it on paper. Can’t tell you how resilient censorship and the Great Firewall (GFW) has made me. It has sparked a very successful business venture for me in learning how to code around the GFW and get people connected the right way. I’m equally a huge fan of Dweck’s work on growth mindsets. If you’re an elementary educator, I highly recommend Class Dojo’s recent five part mini-series, included with plenty of rich teacher questions and activities to go along with it.
  • Digital citizenship: Or even digital literacy. How many curricula are teaching kids to link jump? After all, tech is supposed to promote efficiency, no? Furthermore, not only teaching our kids, but also parents, too. Think. Pause. Reflect. Comment. Or what about just being kind and positive? Important skills to promote in a “keyboard warrior” or “troll” world. I love sharing Google’s Online Safety Roadshow five part mini-series, along with this video from Common Sense Media with my children:

  • Design processes and the maker movement: This combines with all of my aforementioned arguments discussed in the “Computational thinking” section.
  • Global citizens: Can’t figure out how something works? Why is it broken? Tinker first. If you’re still stuck, go to YouTube or even contact the developer, personally, on Twitter! Technology also gives users a greater audience. Digital portfolio programs, like Seesaw, allow for an international student, in China, for example, to receive synchronous feedback from their parent on a business trip in Germany. Finally, collaboration is no longer bound to location. MET course project work is a fine example of this, with the help of applications like Google’s Apps for Education and, even Blackboard.

What technological competencies are in demand and rewarded in your organization?

Arguably all?! In the highly competitive and rewarding career of international teaching, these are concepts that any passionate edtech, specialist or generalist teacher should aspire to master or improve upon. Come occupational transition time, I’ll be looking for organizations/schools that are actively promoting these ideals.

What do you see as the biggest challenge for the teachers and the students to professionally succeed in a “digital-age”, in technology-dependent environments?

I’m going to ruffle a few feathers here, but unions and tenure systems that support teachers resilient to change. As educators, our modelling promotes learning. Adults who struggle with grit, perseverance and computational thinking themselves, will not benefit anyone. Technology is frustrating, even for self-proclaimed tech geeks such as myself. Even if you aren’t that comfortable with technology, put your swimmers on and dip your feet in the pool. Have a growth mindset. Remember, that you are just not great at it … yet. It takes time, practice, reflection and goal setting. Metacognition is an important notion here. Key point: Step out of your comfort zone!