Final Synthesis
Part One – Precis of Flight Path
As was stated in my Flight Path assignment, my goals for this course were:
- to discern the appropriate scenario for this type of application,
- to know the breadth of an LMS,
- to ascertain the types of assessment effective in given situations,
- to determine if/when the use of (which) social interfaces will be optimal,
- to determine which of the many and diverse forms of media would be educationally sound, and
- to construct an LMS that perhaps encapsulates some of the pre-packageable content that I teach in the library.
See below for the reflection I have on this initial projection.
Module One: Digital-age Teaching Professionals & Theoretical Frameworks
Learning Objectives:
- Identify your personal learning goals for the course, in the context of internationally accepted standards and Seven Principles.
- Become familiar with theoretical frameworks and approaches for supporting learning in technology-enriched contexts;
- Become familiar with theoretical frameworks and approaches for evaluating technology for use in teaching and learning.
The flight path assignment due during the course of this module was difficult to do in part because I had no idea what this course was about when I signed up. Terms such as Moodle, GUIs, SCORM packages were all completely brand new territory. I often felt like a stray parachuter in a foreign land. The reading from Nel, Dreyer, & Carstens (2010), gave some hint that part of this journey would involve assisting the “Lone Ranger” in making pedagogically sound decisions when selecting educational technology.
The mystery further unraveled when we evaluated ourselves as teachers against the ISTE standards. I thought I’m on the right track when I read standard five, “Teachers continuously improve their professional practice, model life-long learning . . . by promoting and demonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resources.”
The quality of the learning environment was set by reading the professions (and educational legacies) of the other students, by the admonition to peak performance in the course introduction and by Chickering (1996) words, “expect more and you will get it. High expectations are important for everyone. Expecting students to perform well becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
Module Two: Learning Management Systems, Other web-based approaches, and Mobile Technologies
Learning Objectives:
- Describe the role delivery platforms play in creating rich educational environments;
- Think about the challenges and opportunities that come with the new types of LMS;
- Estimate time and effort necessary for adopting an LMS platform.
- Assess the infrastructure available at the institution or organization in your scenario to support various delivery platforms; and
- Successfully select an appropriate delivery platform for your scenario.
- Discuss what role mobile technologies play in learning.
With my e-portfolio created it was time to decide Moodle or Blackboard. Porto (2015) notes, that learning the skills and competencies to use new technologies is essential for 21century professionals in all areas. There were moments of confusion in this process most notably while realizing the shift in the 10 years between when the Coates article was written, where they write, “LMS are in the relatively early stages of development,”(2005, p.21) to where Spiro (2014) prophesies their demise: “this will lead to an end of the corporate LMS within 5 years.” Is this really the way to go? Will understanding the structure and design of LMS be pointless? My thinking through this module was that there will probably always be a need for some form of delivery platform for learning. Learning organizations have been making the shift from planning and control to facilitating individual learner needs for some time (Spiro, 2014). Even though empowering users to use their own tools is counterintuitive to the essence of Learning Management Systems (Porto, 2015) the ability to adjust content to student level and allow self-paced learning through mobile technology is ideal for implementing differentiated instruction (Ciampa, 2013).
Module Three: Communication Tools, Interactions for Learning, and Assessment Tools
Learning Objectives:
- Describe characteristics of asynchronous and synchronous interactions and determine when and how to integrate such interactions;
- Differentiate between one-way and two-way modes of communication in relation to learning technologies.
- Identify different kinds of interaction possibilities within online and blended courses.
- Consider the role of assessment in student learning and make distinctions between formative and summative assessment strategies;
- Differentiate between assessment of learning and assessment as/for learning;
- Decide on the assessment strategies for your course.
The pieces that I held tightly to were the Bates (2014) chapters and the Anderson (2008) articles. However it was, that they worded what they were writing about, seemed to make sense to me. Perhaps the kind of learner I am, I needed the structure or frame or foundation to ground/view/build the rest of my learning. SECTIONS provided a place of orientation from what made sense to what I was unfamiliar with. Anderson (2008a) advocates for an approach whereby an appropriate mix of student, teacher, and content interaction is not only possible, but can be designed for each learning outcome. As well, Anderson’s learner/ knowledge/ assessment/ community centred explanations and images reminded me of the new BC curriculum (and accompanying flowcharts). Through both of these authors I was spanning the divide between what was familiar to what was new territory. The parallel of Anderson’s (2008) four “centres” with the BC curriculum, helped shape the way I structured the Introductory module.
I also need to make mention of the Gibbs and Simpson article in its focus on assessment design. As a teacher, assessment is part of everyday. However it is time consuming (and therefore expensive), disliked by both students (and teachers), and largely ineffective in supporting learning (Gibbs & Simpson, 2005). Assessment that supports worthwhile learning, needs to give sufficient study time for the most important tasks, be connected to productive activities, and the feedback given focuses on student performance/learning NOT on the characteristics of the learners themselves (Gibbs & Simpson, 2005).
Module Four: Social Media and Learning, Intellectual Property/Copyright and Privacy, and Multimedia
Learning Objectives:
- Become familiar with key social media technologies;
- Rethink the use of social media for social change
- Consider issues relating to copyright in digital learning spaces;
- Integrate resources and create a digital story.
- Assess the scope of a multimedia project;
- Identify the resources required to develop these multimedia in-house.
With the Introductory module complete, the next task was the digital story – media, about media within media. Seimens (2003) admonition that proper integration of media formats presents students with rich, varied learning while minimizing the weaknesses of each format, meant that the scope and sequence of this needed to be well designed. The role and knowledge of the educator is more important than ever in understanding how to use these tools to bring authentic experiences to students (November, 2012). Without clear guidelines, popular trends (or tools) can drive decisions rather than the educational appropriateness of the technology or media (Boyes, Dowie, & Rumzan, 2005).
As I reviewed the notes for this module, I think my learning edge going forward will be the move away from creating things to be consumed, toward creating spaces where anyone can contribute/edit/create.
Module Five: What’s on the Horizon, and Looking Back, Moving Forward
Learning Objectives:
- Look into new trends and ideas about educational technology;
- Examine the possibilities of realizing those ideas.
- Reflect critically upon your overall ETEC565A experience
For the final reflective reading for the course, I had to choose Bates. His observation, that education brokers seem to be operating in a policy vacuum regarding open learning in general, convey the length/depth of thought he has on this subject (2014). At some point, institutions will need to develop a clearer, more consistent strategy for open learning, in terms of how it can best be provided, how it calibrates with formal learning, and how open learning can be accommodated within the fiscal constraints of the institution (Bates, 2014). That insight seems to echo the ETEC 565 journey for myself. As an education broker I had a policy vacuum for “open” learning (especially in the form of LMS). I needed to develop my thinking for providing such a digital experience, especially within the public education context I work within. The terms by which I could now facilitate those means of learning have come into focus. I am not by any stretch proficient, but have a sense of what the height and depth and breadth could be for a specific situation. Going forward, it will become a matter of practicing what I have learned and applying it in the various situations in which I find myself.
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
Bates, T. (2014). MOOCs. In Teaching in digital age, Chapter 7. Retrieved from
Bates, T. (2014). Pedagogical differences between media: Social media. In Teaching in digital age, Chapter 9.
Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/9-5-5-social-media/
Bates. T. (2014). Teaching in a digital Age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/5-8-
assessment-of-learning/
Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in digital age http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/ (Chapter 8 on SECTIONS
framework)
Boyes, J., Dowie, S., & Rumzan, I. (2005). Using the SECTIONS framework to evaluate flash media. Innovate Journal of
Online Education, 2(1). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.186.6505&rep=rep1&type=pdf
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
Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 30(1), 82–96. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12036/epdf
Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of Learning Management Systems on
university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education and Management, 11(1), 19-
- http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11233-004-3567-9
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
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2008). Standards for teachers. Retrieved from
http://www.iste.org/standards/standards-for-teachers
Nel, C., Dreyer, C., & Carstens, W. A. M. (2010). Educational technologies: A classification and evaluation. Tydskrif vir
letterkunde, 35(4), 238-258. Retrieved from http://www.ajol.info/index.php/tvl/article/download/53794/42346
November, A. (2012). How Twitter can be used as a powerful educational tool. November Learning [Weblog] Retrieved
from http://novemberlearning.com/educational-resources-for-educators/teaching-and-learning-articles/howtwitter-
can-be-used-as-a-powerful-educational-tool/
Siemens, G. (2003). Evaluating media characteristics: Using multimedia to achieve learning outcomes. Elearnspace.
Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/mediacharacteristics.htmUBC
Porto, S. (2015). The uncertain future of Learning Management Systems. The Evolllution: Illuminating the Lifelong
Learning Movement. Retrieved from
Spiro, K. (2014). 5 elearning trends leading to the end of the Learning Management Systems. Retrieved from
http://elearningindustry.com/5-elearning-trends-leading-to-the-end-of-the-learning-management-system