Most of my online or mixed-mode course experience has been a bit generous on the assessment and knowledge, and a bit lean on the community and learner.
Anderson (2008) outlines tools that would help facilitate knowledge-centred experience need to connect the big-picture with the fire-hose abundance of information in a way where students can personalize and “grow their own knowledge and discipline-centred discoveries” (p. 49). These would draw on the specific knowledge of the discipline as well as that of the community members. Examples of this in our Connect course these have looked like:
- Articles, chapters, and excerpts in the library course reserve list;
- Extensive course outlines detailing objectives, scope and sequence;
- Static pages of how-to-set-up WordPress, and other accounts.
Assessment-centred attributes are characterized as being “project and workplace-based, constructed collaboratively, benefit from peer and expert review and which are infused with opportunity and requirement for self-assessment” (p. 50). In our Connect course, assessment examples have looked like:
- Reflection assignments in the form of case studies and interpretations;
- Collaborative assignments (evaluation rubric);
- ePortfolio;
- Creation of LMS.
Community-centred attributes, according to Wilson (1997) are those where participants have a “shared sense of belonging, trust, expectation of learning and a commitment to participate in and contribute to community.” It also needs to be flexible to reflect the members of the community and reflexive, meaning: continuously able to recalibrate to the changes in that community. In our Connect course these have looked like:
- Evaluation rubric;
- Pros and Cons piece;
- Discussion forums (“Saying Hello,” queries about the course (etc.), and reflections on posts);
- RSS feed.
Finally learner-centred (or “learning-centred” Anderson, 2008, p. 47) must start with an understanding of the learner as having understandings, culture, and uniqueness, and be able to provide means and occasion for that to be shared. It must continue with an understanding that the community of learners and how that community interfaces with the subject matter will also have understandings, culture, and uniqueness. In our Connect course these have looked like:
- Discussion forum (“Saying Hello”);
- Reflection posts such as this one where the learner is asked to apply reading to own situation;
As far as using creating meaningful interactions within the LMS course we are to create, the learning technologies tools used will need to match the objectives sought within the structure of relationships created. There are so many web-based tools available now compared to those outlined in the Anderson article. Knowing which to use would need to be a reflexive enterprise in a live course, as each of those four will interact and have varying influence with each other given different situations. Prensky’s list (2001, p. 14) will be one I will be consulting as I continue to refine the work I’m doing in Moodle.
References
Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Ch3-Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning.pdf