I was quite intrigued, having read (Anderson, 2008a) before, at the more prominent elements of the text when considering the article from the design point of view. Most of my reflections this week revolved around the concept of affordance; the potential of technology if properly integrated. It is using this notion that I can better reflect on my experiences with online learning.
In my personal teaching experience, online learning support has been greeted with very little success. Having read Anderson (2008a); (2008b), I now have a better understanding on we saw little benefits; the needed balance as described by Anderson (2008a) between learner-centered, assessment-centered, community centered and knowledge-centered did not exist. The class websites were often used as a dumping ground for the passive assimilation of knowledge. Teachers would simply post the PowerPoints, Notebook files and assignments covered in class, as such the online environment served more as a backup; never looking into other potential benefits of these technological tools. These tools were never properly integrated and as such never truly beneficial to the students: we did not use the websites in student learning, we simply had websites. I believe that the general perception at the school would have been very different if the websites were properly integrated housing interactive features, discussion boards and opportunities for assessment and for feedback.
When applying to the MET, I truly did not know what to expect. I envisioned more of a talking head synchronous manner of proceeding. I was pleasantly surprised by the well-designed and developed learning communities offered in the MET program that seemed to not only find balance between the four lenses described by Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2002) but blend seamlessly the concepts described by Anderson (2008a) of communities of inquiry and structure learning resources. Each class fostered a well-functioning learning community regardless of their differences in teacher presence, participation requirements, icebreaker activity or platform used. Even similar technological tools were, at times, implemented in a different manner. I believe this highlights that there is no one true right path to achieving balance (Anderson, 2008a) and instead the tools need to be flexible and match your students and situation. It is a question of affordance; the same tool can be beneficial in various ways as long as it is properly integrated.
This thought process is not reserved for online learning, however the creation of online course do require extra time to set up. Well-designed icebreakers and digital storytelling consolidate learning communities and display enthusiasm (Anderson) which although prevalent in face-2-face learning can be lost behind the computer interface. By carefully considering the type of interaction that will be supported by the technology (Anderson, 2008a) we can carefully select the best suited tools for the task (Prensky, 2001). Many of the technologies that I hope to implement in my Moodle course and subsequent teaching are elements that I never truly considered for I did not clearly see their full potential or the logic behind their integration.
Badges for example, which are extensively used in certain MET classes and not in others, are a technological tool I hope to master. Having never used them in my own class (as people often dismissed them as for younger students), I was highly intrigued by the purpose of badges. Now, having experienced courses with badges and created a few, I have a much stronger grasp on their affordances. Badges are a method of student-content interaction providing feedback as well as a method of student-teacher interaction as the student understands the teacher’s expectations. I had never considered the design aspect of such technology before until personally experiencing and interacting with it.
Social media is another relevant example. I am not one that has ever truly embraced social media (my 2014 year end Facebook review consisted of a single picture). I never embraced this technology for I did not see its educational potential behind the barrage of selfies. However, when modelled and used in a specific manner, such as the ways seen in various MET courses, social media is an amazing tool for sharing ideas, creating and receiving feedback. Basically, social media and web 2.0 is a way to foster many types of interactions between students, content and teachers.
I foresee that the creation of an online course will be quite a challenge for me as my previous experience outside the MET program has revolved very little around the affordances of technology; technology was just added on without much thought. This haste leads to improper implementation of the technological tools and as such affects the efficiency of the technology (Tufte, 2003) and leaves educators with the feeling of unfulfilled promises. The benefits of technology, although they might favor the development of a certain behavior or skill, are in no way intrinsic in their nature. Technology which truly supports learning is not thrown together in a haphazard manner; it is carefully considered. Once you are aware of the logic /benefits behind its proper integration you can get a lot more out of the technology as it allows you to step back and reflect, it allows for metacognition. The effective e-teacher needs to stay abreast of the technological development, content development and pedagogical reasoning behind their choices(Anderson, 2008b).
References:
Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. Theory and practice of online learning, 2, 15-44.
Anderson, T. (2008b). Teaching in an online learning context. Theory and practice of online learning, 273-294.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2002). How people learn: Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Tufte, E. (2003). PowerPoint is evil: Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. Wired.