Author Archives: jchrona

Synthesis

Flight Path Précis

My flight path for this course echoed my reason for undertaking this subject of study from the outset. I chose this field of study for my Masters because I knew little about educational technology and wanted to learn more. My learning was for me alone – not to meet any professional goals.

My flight path for this course was a journey of discovery. I am a proponent of trying to help other educators understand concepts of teaching and learning embedded in in the First Peoples Principles of Learning (FPPL), a set of principles of education that reflect the shared understandings of the First Peoples of BC, and I started to wonder if there is a way to integrate educational technology in the schools in ways that could still honour the FPPL. In my perspective, the most challenging scenario would involve creating an on-line learning course that also explicitly honours the student’s relationship to place (including their natural environment) and others.

Another question has emerged alongside that original query: is there a way to use technology to create a learning experience for other educators to help them understand how to integrate the FFPL into their classrooms? In many of the workshops I currently facilitate, educators frequently express interest in being able to continue their learning in informal ways with other teachers around the province.

Because experience with distance learning technologies has been limited to this program, my goals were simple: learn what I can about creating a Moodle or Blackboard learning space; gain some hands on experience with more multi-media; and explore the possibility of setting up formal learning experiences via social media.

Reflection on Flight Path

I have had an interesting learning journey through this course which grew more complex as my schedule for my job increased substantially, resulting in me working 6 days a week and being on the road (by plane and automobile) during most weekends and many evenings. This schedule is largely the result of the number of educators in the province seeking to learning more about the FPPL, and how to integrate them into classrooms. It is rather ironic or serendipitous (depending on one’s point of view) that this focus challenged my time in a course where I wanted to explore how to use technology to do that vary thing.

I did accomplish some aspects of my anticipated flight path; I was able to learn the basics of Moodle and begin to design a course that could provide professional development experiences for educators in a way that could also honour the principles the Moodle participants were learning about. However, I did not explore as much as I wanted the possibilities of more effectively harnessing social media for the same purposes, but at least the question has been raised. I believe that creating the right question(s) is as important as looking for the answers.

Overall ETEC 565A Experience

Aside from some challenges with the Moodle, I did learn in the course, and that is my ultimate measure of success. One of the significant pieces of learning that I take from the course can be summed up in the words of Bates and Poole (2003) that “Teachers or educational administrators making decisions about educational technology should have some theoretical model or framework that guides the choice of media and technology. If not, they will be constantly driven by the latest technology development, whether or not they are appropriate” (p.80). I always keep in mind something that is foundational to what I believe about the role of educational technology – technology for the sake of novelty is not innovation. In “Stop Innovating in Schools. Please” Will Richardson (2016) argues that much of our innovation in schools is not directed to improving learning as much as focuses on trying to improve teaching, usually through the use of technology. He maintains that effective education focuses on supporting learning and the desire to learn. This can be achieved with or without additional “innovative” technology. This approach mirrors my philosophy about the use of educational technology – that we should always think carefully about the technology we choose to introduce and use with students. If it does not enhance learning, then I would question shy it would be used. This approach to educational technology has been reflected in some of the ETEC courses I have been a part of so far, and by some of the instructors and students in these courses. However, it has been equally absent in other courses and with other students and instructors who seem to embrace the use of new technologies for the sake of their novelty.

During this course, I encountered examples of things that could be done in e-learning environments that, to me, did not support learning. This served to underscore the need to think critically about how we choose to create e-learning environments and learning experiences for students. This critical examination includes questioning the decisions we make about how we design e-learning environments, and always asking what might be the unintended consequences of the design choices we make, as there are both pros and cons to every decision. Nel, Dreyer and Carstens (2010) acknowledge that while there is a necessity of considering accessibility, cost ease and convenience of use, it is also important that any decisions about technology or media choices begin with pedagogical justifications. It does not matter if everyone can use certain technology and access certain media of there is no pedagogical reason for doing so. Once it is established that technology and media can support or enhance learning, then the other factors come into play in choosing what to use.

One of the challenges I found with this course was the level of skill level with technology that was assumed for some of the assignments. I like to explore and play with technology, but find that the process is more effective if there are some initial structures put in place. For example the instructions about how to set up a WordPress blog at the beginning of the course was quite detailed, and even though I already knew how to do that, I appreciated the detail. A similar scaffold would have helped with the Moodle. Even before I could learn how to create a “splash page” and “customized GUI”, I had to learn what was meant by those terms. This experience reminded me to recognize the range of prior knowledge students bring with them to learning communities, and encourages me to remember to find ways for students in those communities to work collaboratively to enable each to share his or her knowledge with each other to create a true community of learners. In this course, this was found in the aspects of ETEC 565A when we were able to work in small groups. I found the small group work conducive to supporting a sense of a learning community that I did not feel in the larger group.

Next Steps

I do not anticipate continuing to develop my Moodle course in the near future. At this point in time the organization I work with does not have the additional capacity (in terms of extra personnel) to support such an endeavour, and my schedule is already stretched too thin. However, as I write this, I am also aware that circumstances can changes quickly, and opportunities can present themselves when least expected.

Through the process of developing the Moodle, I continually wrestled with the tension between the foundations of FPPL (which stress the development of relationship, a holistic approach to learning, and explicitly tying learning to sense of place and connection to the land) with the kinds of learning experiences possible with a wholly on-line learning experience. What I have come to understand is that it is possible in the learning activities to ask the learners to make those connections, and bring the learning they gained back into the on-line learning environment to add to the learning of all in the course. In a sense it could be described as a different type of a “blended course”. I intend to integrate this knowledge into work I do that helps other educators integrate the FPPL into schools and classrooms.

Plans for Lifelong Learning

I plan to continue exploring various education technology in relation to both the FPPL and using technology to create more seamless links between formal learning environments and the rest of peoples’ lives. In Module 1 we examined the ISTE Teacher Standards. The ones that continue to resonate as much now as they did then as effective approaches are Standards 1 and 2 – inspiring student creativity, engaging students in real-world issues, solving authentic problems, and promoting student reflection; and developing authentic learning experiences, promoting creativity, and supporting students in personalizing their learning, respectively. I value authentic learning experiences so that students are able to find relevancy in their learning and make explicit the connections between what they do in the classroom/school environment and the rest of their lives.

To this end, I plan to continue thinking about how to tap into the technology that is increasingly becoming a regular part of our lives (such as mobile technology and social media) and explore how we might harness those structures to promote learning that connects to each other and to place. In this way I can see a possibility for a convergence between the FPPL and the possibility for authentic, contemporary applications of learning. As Bates (2014) indicates, recent developments in social media have increased the potential for using it to supplement other learning spaces, or to use it exclusively as the learning space. I am also interested in exploring more media that is very easy to use. As indicated in Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model, people are “more likely to use technology that is quick and easy to use” (p.271) and that require little to no time for people to learn to use. I see that social media is a possible route to explore that uses technology that is not a challenge, or time consuming to use.

How this will all play out in reality remains to be seen, but I am looking forward to the continued journey.

References:

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in digital age. Retrieved from: http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Bates, A. and Poole, G. (2003) Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

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

Richardson, W. (2016). Stop innovating in schools. Please. Retrieved from: http://willrichardson.com/

Assignment #3 Reflection – My Digital Story and Moodle

Reflection

This project had its highlights and lowlights. Throughout it all, I found the that greatest challenge was navigating the tension between what I had hoped to achieve with the technology and what I was actually able to do – the latter being governed by a combination of the what the technology allowed, and knowledge of how to use the technology (and my ability to independently learn what I needed to learn).

The Digital Story

My digital story (DS) was an appropriate project to include in my Moodle. It connects to two of the First Peoples Principles of Learning (FPPL) that the Moodle course is designed around, for first being the understanding that “learning is embedded in memory, history, and story”. I connected the “story” concept to the FPPL “learning requires exploration of one’s identity” by creating a brief story of who I am. Both of these principles are explored in the specific module in which I embedded the DS. It is intended to be used as an example for the Moodle course participants as they think about how they would describe who they are – what “story” they tell of themselves, a first step before then thinking about how who they are informs both their own learning, and their teaching practice.

Since the digital story is connected to identity, I wanted to use a format that was able to incorporate photographs that represented what was important to me in life. Also, because my digital story is an example that the Moodle participants could potentially use, I needed a format that was not difficult to learn to use. I originally wanted to integrate audio in my digital story along with the visual images. As Siemens (2003) indicates, each type of media has its strengths and weaknesses and integration of various media is able to enrich learning, and Bates (2014) refers to the fact that the use of audio is “particularly ‘potent” (237) in media.

However, the actual process of creating the DS took me on an unexpected journey. I first used a tool that I have used before, but upon completing it, found out that it was not a format that could be uploaded to the blog (or later to the Moodle). Consequently, I decided to choose a different online DS tool that I had never used before. I spent some time creating and editing a product I was satisfied with (and that incorporated both visual and audio) but when the story was finally finished (with all photos uploaded, and audio commentary provided) and ready to be published on the DS site that helped create it, I encountered a “glitch” that prevented the final step (which had to be completed on the tool’s website) form being completed. I did some quick research about that DS tool and found that this “glitch” had existed for the last three years and had never been resolved (as far as I could find out).

So I created yet another DS with a third tool – PhotoPeach – which does not allow for my recorded audio commentary; instead it allows for captioning of the visuals and a choice of music from the site, or the uploading of music. I decided to forgo finding another tool that allowed for the personal audio commentary for the sake of at least working though to a finished product that I could take through all the steps to finally have it embedded in my Moodle. I also decided against adding the “canned” music as it did not add quality to the DS, and did not uploading music, as I had none that was free to use.

At this point I came to think about the consideration of “speed” that needs to be taken into account in the selection of media. Boyes, Dowie and Rumzan (2005) referring to a version of the SECTIONS framework, indicate that the speed with which technology can be updated is a consideration that one needs to take into account when choosing technology. This became real for me in an unexpected way. As I indicated, with the 2^nd DS tool I used, I had completed the DS (almost) and had spent considerable time editing versions before I was satisfied with it. All of this was before I knew that it would not ultimately work. So for the DS I created with PhotoPeach, I was more concerned with completing a draft of the DS and taking it through all the steps it needed to go through to ensure it could be embedded in my Moodle. The only problem is that then editing the DS required a new DS to be created and then downloaded (before then uploading). This experiences underscored the importance of choosing media that is relatively easy to adapt or revise in a timely and inexpensive way.

Bates (2014) indicates that the ideal learning tool is not available. I imagine that this is because what is the ideal tool for one person or context is not necessarily the ideal tool for another person or context. In the case of my DS I wanted a particular type of product, but the tools I could independently learn to use in the time I had available lead me to make some compromises. The tool I finally used satisfied the purpose of DS. Although, originally I wanted to have an audio narration accompany the visuals, I was able to share a story of who I am through the combination of photographs and text.

The Moodle

As I worked on specific contents of the module for this assignment, I realized that I would have to make some slight adjustments to introductory modules to provide some additional clarity. I came to realize that like any other course, there is an iterative process to course development for online courses just as there is for a f2f course. I can imagine that as I would work to further develop later modules, I might want to make adjustments to this early assignment as well.

So what have I learned through this process? The answer is mostly a reinforcement of something I already know as an educator – be clear about the goal(s) of an assigned activity. In developing my Moodle activities, I kept having to touch back on the learning objectives to ensure that every decision I was making was with them in mind (as much as possible). This is what led me to create a course where the assessment is based on self and peer assessment and facilitator feedback, and a course where students can have a choice of activities (where all the choices can still meet the same learning outcomes). As Bates (2014) indicates, “The form assessment takes, as well as the purpose, will be influenced by the instructor’s…underlying epistemology” (p. 466). There was no need for an external assessment structure (grades) for my Moodle because one of foundations of the FPPL was to help reinforce the learner’s responsibility for his or her own learning (with strategic and structured assistance and feedback, but not an external measurement). The summative assessment in this case was whether or not an educator could comfortably integrate the FPPL into the content and structure of his or her classrooms – it is the ability to apply what was learned in an authentic context.

Overall, I am again reminded of Bates’ (2014) assertion that trying to make decisions about educational technology, even when using a model such as SECTIONS is not something that could be coded and automated. There are so many variables at play, and decisions made about one aspect of course development will invariable affect decisions about other aspects.

Last, on a slightly related note, I was reminded of one other aspect of my own learning processes through this project. I tend to want to work though things and experience them first hand in order to understand them. Sometimes, I forget to ask for assistance when it would benefit me. On one particular day I had spent over 6 hours trying to figure out how to complete one of the tasks for Assignment 3. I did some research on-line, read the documents I had gathered about creating a Moodle, did some trial and error, and had just finally figured out how to the task when minutes later another student asked the same question I had been working on to our Connect discussion site. Within minutes another classmate responded. If I had just reached out and done the same, I would have saved myself hours of time. A lesson worth remembering in the future as I continue on my tech in education learning journey.

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in digital age http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Boyes, J., Dowie, S., & Rumzan, I. (2005). Using the SECTIONS framework to evaluate flash media. Using the SECTIONS framework to evaluate flash media, 2(1). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.186.6505&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Siemens, G. (2003). Evaluating media characteristics: Using multimedia to achieve learning outcomes. Elearnspace. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/mediacharacteristics.html

More Challenges Than I’d Anticipated

This was an incredibly frustrating assignment. I love creating digital stories (for my own purposes) but for this assignment, there seemed to be no end to the challenges I encountered. I first used a tool that I have used before, but it was not a format that could be uploaded to the blog (or later to the Moodle). I then chose another online tool that I had never used before, but when the story was finally created (with all photos uploaded, and audio commentary provided) I found that that last step of posting it online could not be completed. A little online research indicated that this “glitch” had been occurring since 2013 and had not been addressed as far as I could tell.

I did contemplate creating a (paid) subscription to another DS tool, but decided against doing that on principle (since I wouldn’t be using it again in the near future).

I finally created a DS using PhotoPeach. While this tool was easy to use, there were some challenges. Once a story is created, any subsequent revisions did not show up in subsequent downloads. I had to completely erase the original story and create a new one to incorporate the changes I needed. This tool also included the option for audio, but in this case it was music that did not enhance the story in any way, so I decided not to use it.

On of the other roadblocks I encountered, had to do with the Moodle site. I spent time trying to upload the various DS I created onto the my Moodle site (to ensure there was compatibility). I was not able to upload any version of what I’d created to the site. I am hoping that I will be able to eventually do this eventually.

So what have I learned through this process? The answer is mostly a reinforcement of something I already know as an educator – be clear about the goal(s) of an assigned activity. If the goal is to have students learn about DS tools, then explicitly exploring the pros and cons of different tools is helpful. In this case, I have learned more about various tools through trial and error (but this could have been even more effective if a more collaborative approach to an assignment such as this had been taken). However, if the goal is to help students tell the story, then it is useful to have some vetted sites named specifically, ensuring that they are all compatible with other tech they have to interact with. A final note – this activity could have been a much more enjoyable experience if I hadn’t encountered so many road blocks. It finally got to the point where I cared less about learning, and the product I was creating than just “getting the assignment done”. It reminds me to think about how I structure learning activities for students so that their stress level does not interfere with their learning.

Digital Story – Jo

This digital story is an example of an activity (that is a part of a larger set of activities) connected to identity and the power of story that participants would undertake in one of the modules of the pro-d course for the First Peoples Principles of Learning. I used myself as an example/model for this activity. My reflection will be included in Assignment #3.

On Digital Footprints and Copyright

On Digital Footprints

I wonder about how we are going to perceive “digital footprints a decade or two from now. I remember begin very concerned over a decade ago about my digital footprint. I tried to be diligent about monitoring what information about me was (easily) available on the web and where I left my overt presence. I realized as I thought about this question, that my perceptions about my digital footprint have shifted. Somewhere along the way, I became less concerned about some aspects of what is available. I think this has to do with the shear challenge of trying to monitor something in the work I do. The recognition of the shift for me makes me wonder about the perceptions and attitudes of younger people today who grew up in a digital world very different from the one I was in for the first 20 years of my life (the first time I used a computer was in my mid-twenties). I venture to guess that the concept of a digital footprint (in the context of what info might be available about them) will mean even less to them a decade from now.

I am still thoughtful about what I say however. I try to imagine if I could defend any online utterance 20 or thirty years from now. I see this a slightly different discussion than the information that is available about me. We are increasingly trying to help students understand that the nature of digital world makes records of our choices in ways that they often to not yet understand. These are important discussions to have. However, there is a sense of loss in this. While it is important to help students understand that we need to be accountable for our actions and words, I wonder about the effect on people when we fear that everything we do or say may come back to haunt us in the future.

On Copyright

This is an apropos topic this week for a few reasons. First, I was talking today with other educators about some samples of student work that was originally intended to be posted onto a BC Ministry of Education website, and how, some great samples couldn’t be used because the students had used images they had taken from the web without proper permissions. It reminded me of how common that is in so many classes and is not something that I have seen talked about in many elementary classrooms I have been in. If we want our students to be thinking more seriously about copyright as adults, we need to begin the conversations early as they are increasingly immersed in the web in earlier and earlier grades.

Second, I have been in numerous conversations this last year about cultural appropriation with respect to First Nations cultures and knowledge. This topic continues to surface as more BC educators integrate First Peoples content into classrooms. It has been an interesting challenge to help some people understand that there are narratives in First Nations families, communities, or nations that are “owned” by the family, community, or nation, and that permission needs to be given before the narratives can be shared. The only way to help explain this has been to compare that ownership to a form of cultural copyright, and that in First Nations perspectives, that protocol has as much validity as a Canadian copyright law.

Third, I was recently reminded of the need to continue the work about issues of ownership and appropriation with our own colleagues. I am working on a resource development project, and last week a colleague in the project sent me a document that had been sent to him. He said it looked interesting and might be useful for our work. I should take a look at it and let him know. To my surprise the document he had sent was about 90% word for word taken from a blog I wrote, with a few other sentences thrown in. Nowhere on the document was there any indication that the information had been taken from my blog. It was an interesting experience to say the least.

Assignment #2 Reflection

My goal with this assignment was to begin to create an on-line professional development course that met the needs to BC educators who are seeking to understand the First Peoples Principles of Learning (FPPL) and learn how to use them as a framework to create learning environments and activities in the BC K-12 system. The need for this type of pro-d has intensified as BC undergoes its curriculum revisions which now include an increased focus on the FPPL as an effective approach to student-centred learning. As it was important for me to begin to create something that is relevant for my purposes, I wanted to create an online professional development experience that can substitute for the person-to-person pro-d that I have been doing with school districts in the province.

The materials intended to meet the requirements of Assignment #2 are found in the Intro and Module 1 sections of my Moodle course.

Modelling Through Design

Beside the inherent challenge of learning how to develop a course in Moodle, I was also challenged to design a course that also reflected the very principles the course participants would be learning about, and have made this effort explicit to the participants as I ask them to pay attention to what is asked of them, and determine how the course attempts to model what it is they are learning how to do. This goal of the course reflecting the FPPL affects both the content of the course, the types of interactions asked of participants, and the assessment used in the course.

The FPPL reflect a learner-centred approach to learning that mirrors O’Neill & McMahon’s (2005) summary of learner-centred learning as learning environments that include increased learner choice, active learning (learner “doing” more than the teacher), and shifting power in the student-teacher relationship (learner owning own learning). As students proceed through the course they will engage in thinking about how the FPPL also reflect a learner-centred approach. One might even argue that they are the original learner-centred approach (and in a similar vein are considered by some as the original example of place-based learning).

Central to the implications of a FPPL approach to learning is the development of community, and a collaborative approach to learning. Scardamalia and Bereiter (1994) also suggest that knowledge building is supported by intentional social interaction where participants provide constructive response to each other’s work, and the positive effect of collaborative learning is supported by Rogers and Ellis (1994) in their explanation of collaboration within the framework of distributed cognition, whereby knowledge is shared throughout networks of people. In order to reflect the complimentary drivers of both FPPL and constructivist approaches to the course, the first discussion topic asks participants to share information about themselves both professionally and personally. The overview of the course informs participants that subsequent activities will provide opportunities for collaborative work and will ask them to support each other’s learning through feedback to each other.

Assessment Decisions

The course is not a conventional one with grades or credits. As such, it makes extensive use of formative assessment strategies that are designed to further the participants’ learning, which also reflect a First Peoples’ perspective of assessment that it be authentic and relevant to supporting learning. These strategies are primarily self- and peer- evaluation, with additional provoking questions from the facilitator.

As Wiggens (2006) indicates, the purpose of assessment in education is to further learning. For the purposes of this course the learning is more effective if internalized by the learner in a way that encourages the learner to develop the habit of self-evaluation, as this process also compliments a First Peoples’ perspective of education. In addition, two of the five strategies that William (2006) as indicated in identifies as allowing assessment to assist, rather than inhibit learning are:

Creating learning environments where students are supported in owning their own learning (rather than the teacher being seen as responsible for the creating the learning)
Encouraging learners to be resources for each other

Both these strategies are included in the course design decisions as they also reflect principles found in the FPPL.

From a First Peoples’ perspective, summative assessment could be interpreted as the application of what it is that was learned. In this course this summative element that might be included in grade-based course is replaced by the final project where educators are asked to create the units of study for their students and implement them in their classrooms. Their learning will be represented by their ability to do.

In order to remain loyal to the principles I am using to guide the development of the course I decided to use the quiz requirement of this assignment as a formative assessment tool at the beginning of the course. The use of it this way can be understood as a combination of assessment for learning and assessment as learning (Earl, 2003) The questions are designed to be small teaser questions to start participants thinking about First Peoples, and First Peoples’ perspectives in education. As soon as participants answer the multiple choice, matching and short answer questions, they are provided with answers. It does not matter if the question is answered correctly, as the process of being asked the question, and thinking about the answers, meets the goal of generating thinking and peaking curiosity. Reading materials in subsequent modules will expand upon the information and ideas briefly touched upon in the quiz questions. The participants are ask to keep a record of their long answer questions to that they can refer back to them to compare with later learning in the course.

Communication

Course participants are encouraged to use each other as the first line of support. This strategy helps develop their understanding that they can support each other’s learning journey. It contributes to the development of a sense of community that is important in the context of the FPPL and in a learning environment influenced by constructivist concept that learning is socially constructed. Social constructivist theory proposes that learning occurs as a result of the individual’s interaction within a group or community (Vygostky, 1978). The collaborative nature of group learning, which is further supported by encouraging learners to see each other as a potential learning support reflects Vygotsky’s understanding that social interaction is the necessary and primary cause of ontological development of knowledge in an individual (Glassman, 1994).

The course contains a discussion forum where students are encouraged to post questions that might be able to be answered by other course participants. I indicated that, as the facilitator, I would regularly check the postings to respond to questions that were not able to be answered by anyone in the group. As a last resort, I supplied an e-mail address for direct queries.

Final Thoughts

I have to say that I found this assignment a challenge. I spent more time trying to learn what in the end seemed to be simple things about organizing on Moodle. Various video resources I found and watched helped somewhat, but it took an inordinate amount of time to find answers to simple little questions – and at times these were not resolved, so I made alternate decisions about the course design. At one point I looked at what was actually in the assignment course site (what I had achieved up until that point) and it seemed pathetically sparse in comparison to the amount of time invested. At this point, I am not sure that Moodle would be the option I would choose if I had to make a decision about an LMS for my purposes.

References

Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press

Glassman. M. (1994). All things being equal: The two roads of Piaget and Vygotsky. Developmental Review, 14(2), 186-214.

O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T., (2005) Student-centred learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers? Retrieved from: http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/oneill-mcmahon-Tues_19th_Oct_SCL.html

Rogers, Y., & Ellis, J. (1994). Distributed cognition: an alternative framework for analyzing and Explaining collaborative working. Journal of Information Technology (9), 119-128

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 3(3), 265-283.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, (Eds.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press

Wiggens, G. (2006). Healthier testing made easy: The idea of authentic assessment. Retrieved from: http://www.edutopia.org/authentic-assessment-grant-wiggins

Wiliam, D. (2006). Does assessment hinder learning? Paper presented at ETS Invitational Seminar held on July 11th, 2006 at the Institute of Civil Engineers, London, UK. Retrieved from: http://www.dylanwiliam.org/Dylan_Wiliams_website/Papers.html

“Learning-Centered” as Opposed to “Learner-Centered”?

Anderson asserts that a theory of online learning needs to reflect what is known about effective learning environments in general, and that the attributes of learning are; learner-centred, knowledge-centred, assessment-centred and community-centred. I found Anderson’s descriptions of some of the terms somewhat limited, and I wonder if it has to do with how Anderson sees them in a post-secondary environment as oppose to a K-12 context.

Anderson uses “learner-centred” to refer to the idea that the context of the learner, specifically his or her background, and prior knowledge be understood by the teacher, and that the learning environment take this into account, more for the purpose of the teacher correcting any “misconceptions the learner starts with in their construction of new knowledge” (47), than for anything else. While I see this as necessary in the most effective learning environments, I think Anderson’s view is narrowly constructed. Anderson’s assertion that the focus would be better termed “learning-centred” rather than learner-centred is problematic to me in that it assumes a standard learner and ignore the real diversity in learners. I have seen examples of online learning support diversity in learners more in 8-12 contexts (as opposed to most – but not all – post-secondary contexts I have experiences) where students are able to access information in different formats and represent their learning in different ways.

Regarding “community-centred” learning, I have experienced some online courses that have been able to develop a sense of community among the learners in an online environment. When I think about these situations, the following factors have been present:

Multiple opportunities for students to work together in smaller groups
A learning environment where learners were encouraged to take risks
A learning environment where learners were asked to help each other learn

On a different (but related) note, there has been some work done by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation in the OECD called the Innovative Learning Environments Project which also refers to attributes or principles of learning. The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice is a lengthy document, but worth the read. Chapter 8 specifically deals with Learning with Technology and provides a framework to distinguish the difference between technology-centred and learner-centred approaches to learning with technology. The chapter can be found here.

The research for the project was synthesized to identify 7 principles of learning. They include the following concepts:

Learners at the centre of the learning (includes self-regulation)
The social nature of learning (encourages the well-organized cooperative learning)
Emotions are integral to learning (recognizing the role of emotions in achievement)
Recognizing individual differences (includes recognizing prior knowledge and makes room for differentiation)
Stretching all students (work is challenging without excessive overload)
Assessment for learning (a strong emphasis on effective formative assessment)
Building horizontal connections (promoting connectedness across community and the wider world)

(from The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice – Practitioner Guide from the Innovative Learning Environments Project available here)

Potential Organizational Decisions for Trinh

I am wondering if the following strategies might help Trinh:

Trinh could set up some potential guidelines to help students be a first line of support for each other before contacting her. For example, she could ask them to ask each other if there are general questions about the course that they may want/need help with. It would only be after they have asked each other, and not been able to resolve a situation that she would be contacted. I have found that this is a process that other teachers in f2f have employed, and it seems like it would also be effective for on-line courses. However, it can be taken a step further. At the beginning of an on-line course (especially one the size that Trinh teaches) students may have difficulty establishing a sense of community. In some situations it could be beneficial to immediately “pod” some students to be form initial support peers for each other. Members of pods could also access each other for additional support. This might cut down on the number of contacts students make and also benefits the class by encouraging students’ development of a learning community – often a foundation of a learner centred course.
As far as organizational logistics, although this does not address the number of e-mails she receives, Trinh could clearly specify which e-mail address she will respond to, and which she will not. Ideally, only one would be used to send information to students – this way students can use the same one to contact Trinh. She could also clearly state that questions via her blog and twitter will not be responded to (and stick to that rule). While this will probably not eliminate students contacting her through multiple avenues, it might help simplify some of the contact.
Another organizational decision Trinh could make relates to the concept of “office hours”. When the above While the conventional “office hours” are not possible, there are ways to streamline Trinh’s contact for the times when students do need to contact her. A number of people I know have designated specific times in the day when they will read and respond to e-mails. People are free to e-mail when they want, but they are automatically notified that their e-mail will be read during a specific time period. Given that Trinh’s students are in different time zones, she may prefer to have her “on-line office hours” staggered to respond (as best she can, given her own time zone needs) to different time zones.

I do have a minor question regarding this scenario. I wonder why it is necessary for all students to participate in the live stream of lectures (as one example of the range of multimedia activities). Why couldn’t the lectures at least be saved and made available for students to view at their own convenience (especially as it is an on-line course with students in diverse time zones)? Asynchronous communication can still occur relating to lectures.

Mobile Devices and Thoughts About Motivation

This is a longer one so if you decide to wade through it, I’ve broken it up with some sub-titles.

K-12 Context

The schools I have worked in recently have had various policies regarding the use of personal mobile devices in the classroom. As for mobile devices in general, I am seeing them increasingly use of laptops, tablets and, on occasion smart phones, being used by both teachers and students (the former often being provided by the school, and the latter being personal devices (BYOD) and more often at the secondary level. I have permitted students to use their personal smart phones, but see this as rarer as many teachers are concerned that the phones might be being used for purposes (I.e. social networking and texting for non-educational purposes). Where I see less use of mobile devices, it is usually as the result of teachers not yet comfortable with their own level of knowledge about how to use them for educational purposes, or teachers being in schools with limited tech resources or support

Generally, the use of tablets has been seen as supporting educational purposes for some of the very reasons cited in the Ciampa (2013) article; they support some individualized learning in the form of students being able to access information at their own rate, they are used for educational games, or for providing teachers with targeted feedback in large group discussions (i.e. students answering multiple choice questions or indicating levels of understanding about a concept. In addition, I have also seen more mobile technology used to support students who need to access written information differently (i.e. audio).

In some case, I have had colleagues suggest that if just information is needed, it is more helpful to let students use mobile technology. The teacher can then spend more time helping students apply their learning, make connections to other learning, and develop deeper understandings. I think that this is one way that the increased use of tech is changing the way we teach.

However, I have also seen teachers who are resistant to the increased use of tech for a variety of pedagogical reasons. One of these is the fear that students do not know how to think critically about the information they are so easily able to access. This has led to an increased focus on helping students develop their critical thinking skills by teaching them ask critical questions about information they access on-line.

In addition, I have had colleagues who resist the integration of mobile devices because they do not feel comfortable with their use, or just do not see their use as enhancing the learning environment. In some of these cases, I hope the these teachers think about the opportunity for reciprocal teaching to occur in their classrooms (such as is also mentioned in Ciampa (2013), but in other situations, what is being done in the classroom already achieves the same benefits that Ciampa indicates were possible with the tablet use in the study such as differentiated instruction, cooperative learning, timely and effective feedback, encouraging students to measure their progress against their themselves (and not against peers).

Adult Learning

In adult courses I have taught, the use of mobile devices was widespread, but usually limited to students using their laptops or tablets to access readings, makes notes, or create written assignments.

In the workshops and sessions I facilitate, there is regular use of mobile technology. Participants frequently use tablets of laptops to takes notes, or use tablets of smart phones to take pictures of parts of presentations to save for future reference. In addition, these devices are frequently used to tweet out information or idea they want to share with their on-line communities.

Re Ciampa’s “Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation” (2013)

On another note, I think it important to share some thinking about this week’s reading. I have some concerns with some elements of Malone and Lepper’s (1987) taxonomy of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for leaning (as outlined in the article) and I think linking these couple of elements to the use of mobile devise actually detracts from any argument that mobile devices might be helpful in some learning environments. Supporting the element of “recognition” as a motivator for learning speaks to an understanding of learning that detracts from supporting students to become self-motivated, life-long learners. Yes, there is a desire that many people have for others recognize their achievements (and for some people it is a prime motivator). However, to include this as a positive motivator for students in K-12 can be significantly problematic. We run the very real risk of endorsing recognition as a reason for learning, and if that I internalized, then when the recognition is absent, the learning desire is diminished.

I have seen the use of competition in games situations be beneficial for some students; however, emphasizing competition as a positive motivator seems to be a product of a highly individualistic perspective that does not foster cooperative or collaborative learning. I do need to clarify that my issue is with an emphasis on direct competition – not with indirect competition. It was a relief to see that anecdotally, the students seemed to value indirect completion with themselves, rather than direct competition with each other.

We need to be careful about some motivators, even ones that some people see as effective at changing student behaviours. At one time, corporal punishment was used in Canadian schools because it was seen as an effective motivator for student behaviour . But of course, we have learned since then that there are better ways to help students learn how to manage their behaviours.

Our Class Blog

I am wondering if it is the emphasis on “recognition” that spurred the inclusion on the class blog of the “leaderboard”. When I saw that element on the blog, I was surprised. It seems to run counter to a constructivist, collaborative learning environment. Yes, I know that there are no nefarious intentions with rating people’s posts, but if the goal is to learn with and from each other, then I wonder if that that should be our focus – not providing ratings. To me it is akin to a classroom teacher putting a summative mark (“A”, “B”, etc.) on a student’s paper without providing any real substantive feedback. Unfortunately, when things like this are included in learning environments, they resonate (to me) of an emphasis on individuality and competition – not cooperative learning.

Now, having said all this, I also understand that other people will have different perspectives, and will be able to articulate benefits to such interactions. Yes, there are benefits; I do not argue this. But with every decision we make for our learning environment, there are also potential disadvantages. I can imagine that as we create on-line learning environments for our students we will have weigh these decisions carefully.

Assignment #1 Reflection

Situation:

Yukon Education Student Network (YESNet) and Yukon First Nations Programs & Partnerships Unit of the Yukon’s Ministry of Education want to develop blended secondary courses that are relevant from an Aboriginal perspective.

The Na Cho Nyak Dun First Nation has agreed to pilot the program, but there are concerns about bandwidth and reliability of internet access in their traditional, unceded territories: many of its members rely on 3G technology, for example. If the pilot goes well the program will be rolled out across the Yukon’s other 12 First Nations.

Task:

As members of YESNet’s Learning Technologies Advisory Committee (LTAC) you have been tasked with developing an evaluation rubric to decide which LMS would best suit YESNet’s overall needs, given both current usage and possible upcoming expansion.

Process:

Our group decided to use Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model as a framework for the rubric due to its inclusion of a broad rage of factors that would need to be considered in choosing appropriate technology for learning environments. Although some of the consideration within the SECTIONS model seemed to more directly apply to post-secondary education contexts, the framework was flexible enough to adapt to a K-12 9and in the case of our scenario 8-12) context. In deciding on which questions to include we wanted to look closely at the information provided in the precis and ensure that the rubric was going to include criteria that would help address both the explicitly stated needs (i.e. bandwidth, reliability of internet access) and the implicit needs (i.e. what factors might need to be taken into consideration when implementing in unceded First Nations communities).

Our LMS evaluation rubric and paragraph summary was posted by Meghan here.

Reflection:

The process of determining what would be included in the rubric was collaborative in nature; we each provide initial draft content for specific sections of the rubric and then worked together to adapt and refine as necessary. In my estimation, what was built was more complete than what would have been developed if we had each worked individually. During the process I also came to focus on two ideas:

It is important to fully understand the context an LMS will be used in, especially if that context differs from our own. What might be relevant or suitable for some contexts, may be less useful in others. In the case of this scenario, I wanted to help ensure that we were paying attention to the specific context of YESNet’s mandate, where the LMS would be implemented, and who (both teachers and students) would be using it. Understanding this (which in the case of this assignment was helped by doing some additional simple research) helps ensure that a rubric for evaluating a potential LMS for this context would be as useful as possible.
Related to the previous idea is the understanding that some parts of an evaluation rubric for an LMS might have more weight than other aspects for evaluators. When I look at the factors (or considerations) we decided were necessary to include, I wonder if some of them might be more important than others during an actual evaluation. For example, what (if any) might be the primary drivers? Costs? Ease of Use? Adaptability? Perhaps in a real situation these (and other) factors might be given equal weight. But there is also the potential that the people making the final decisions might place more weight on some factors than on others. It is helpful to know about, and discuss these potential factors.

The process of collaboratively developing the rubric underscored the following for me:

Trying to choose the best LMS for a specific situation can be a challenging process, but it is helped by:

As much as possible, comprehensive knowledge of the learners/teachers and learning contexts
A group process of evaluation, as each member is able to bring different perspectives and help the other think about and question our own assumptions.

Reference:

Bates, T. (2014). Teaching in a digital age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage