As my only formal online learning experience, being enrolled in UBC MET has changed my perspective of what a learner-centred environment can look like. As Anderson (2008) states:
“we must be careful to recognize that learner-centred contexts must also meet the needs of the teacher, the institution, and of the larger society that provides support for the student… For this reason, I have argued […] that this attribute may be more accurately labelled as learning-centred, as opposed to learner-centred.” (p.47)
This particular reading was assigned in my first course in the program, and it is somewhat serendipitous to re-read it now in one of my last courses. In the beginning of the program especially, I felt very resistant to assignments or protocols that didn’t align with these concepts of best online educational practice that Anderson (2008) outlines, and more specifically, ones that didn’t take into account my personal teaching and learning contexts. While he does touch on the importance of contextual connection for formation of communities, it is also important to consider perspectives outside of your own as a student, such as what I am experiencing here in ETEC 565A. For example, I have never taught formal courses online and I have no intention of doing so in the immediate future, but considering how my approaches need to change in order to complete these assignments is both stretching my thinking and helping me develop empathy for online course creators. Learner-centredness isn’t just about pandering to the wants and needs of a learner, but also about supporting them in the moments of discomfort that occur in the learning process. But yes, some autonomy within those contexts is nice, too, whether for tools and content involved in the creative process.
For the most part, the MET courses I’ve taken have attempted to build peer-peer connections through the promotion of knowledge-building communities (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). Particularly, this would involve the building of understanding through asynchronous peer discussions. Peer motivation was frequently high in pushing understandings and asking questions to promote further learning. Sometimes this would include bringing in outside sources to support thinking within discussions. It was infrequent, however, for instructors to get involved in discussions. After asking a few instructors about this early in MET, they posited that instructor involvement often acted to shape opinion and create an inorganic learning experience for students. Later in the journey, I’ve found that this opinion will differ from instructor to instructor, but overall, they participate less than I would have imagined at the outset. (Natasha seems to be an exception to that rule and is very present and involved.)
Assessments in MET courses were often built around autonomous choice with specified learning goals such as development case-based reasoning skills (Rizzo, 1998), conclusive and confident discussion of nuanced topics, or effective media creation. These opportunities for learning sometimes provided feedback for future learning, but, unfortunately, I often found that either feedback was minimal or not informative enough for improvement in later assignments. Additionally, I’m not sure to the degree that these assessments would inform future teaching on behalf of the instructor. For the most part, I’m guessing it wasn’t that responsive of a process, as it seemed that course content remained the same regardless of overall performance by the cohorts I was involved in. In short, I found that I had to be my own advocate throughout my online graduate learning experience; if you don’t ever ask for the support, you’ll never know the answer, even if it’s a simple “I can’t help you there.”
As for how I might use the tools to promote interactions within my own courses, I’m certainly thinking about the blending of asynchronous and synchronous communications over several components of the course. I want to provide channels that students can choose from to meet them where they are comfortable, while still stretching understandings of online navigation and tool use. For example, I really enjoyed the opportunity to speak with Natasha to clarify questions re: Assignment 2. These types of short and simple chats – which can be archived for those who can’t make it – are great ways to provide synchronous and connected communications, and definitely enhance the ‘community feel’ of the course itself.
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
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466822
Rizzo, A-M. (1998). Inventing narratives in ethical reasoning in an administrative ethics course. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 4(1), 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40215365