Category Archives: D: Interactions

Anderson’s Attributes

According to Bransford and colleagues (1999), learner-centred is another way of collecting information from students and thus allowing to have a deeper understanding of what they can bring to the class (as cited in Anderson, 2008). Throughout my journey so far within the MET program, I find that most professors have achieved this by asking us students what our professional/schooling background is and what is it that we want to gain from in the course. I find this very effective because it makes us think and reflect on why did we choose this course and how will it benefit us? The “Get to Know You” discussion at the beginning of every course allows us students to write about our background. In my professional teaching career, I do something similar. I hand out a questionnaire to my students and parents asking them certain questions such as: What are your favourite hobbies? What is your favourite and least favourite subjects? What do you want to focus on this term? How can you achieve this? I can get to know my students on a deeper level and can plan my units and lessons accordingly.

When I think of knowledge-centred, I think of one of the teaching strategies we learned in elementary school: text to text, text to self and text to real world. Learning is not just about reading books and listening to lectures, it’s about making connections with facts, people, ideas and communities (Anderson, 2008). One great example of this in the MET program is when we write reflections on articles and certain questions that are asked. In my teaching, I always try to incorporate real life examples as it makes learning more enjoyable for the students and myself.

I completely agree when Anderson (2008) states the assessment strategies that provide summative and formative assessment are needed most to have the least amount of teacher work load impact. I find assessment a challenge in my teaching career. I want to be able to provide the easiest and best way possible to assess my students that won’t require additional time on my part. I want to be able to give them feedback that they can use for future projects and assignments. In our MET program, I find online feedback the most useful along with rubrics that are posted before we start our project. This gives us something to look at and work towards with the criteria already in place. I really like the idea of having the students create their own criteria that Anderson (2008) has stated and will be trying this in the future.

Community-centred learning would best be illustrated in our MET program with our online discussions. If we were to have any sense of community, conversing and learning with one another allow us to have a sense of belonging. In the classroom, student group work and feeling safe are two important aspects that are critical to have. I want my students to feel safe in a way that they can ask any question and to be able to learn from one another.

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.

Attributes of Learning

In my current working environment, we hold live face-to-face (f2f) courses and we are developing online courses.

Using Anderson’s model as a framework, there are definite distinctions between how each of our formats address each learning attribute.

LEARNING ATTRIBUTES	FACE-TO-FACE COURSES	ONLINE COURSES
Learner-centred	Our courses are learner centred in that the content covered reflects knowledge lacking in a particular professional community (as ascertained by a committee and a needs assessment.) Learners seeking that knowledge choose to attend our programs. Programs are held on Saturdays to accommodate professionals’ schedules. Programs assume an understanding of Canadian/Manitoban professional standards.	Our online courses are learner-centred in that the content covered reflects knowledge lacking in a particular professional community (as ascertained by a committee and a needs assessment.) Learners seeking that knowledge choose to take our online courses. Courses may be taken online at any time that suits the individual learner. Programs assume an understanding of North American professional standards.
Knowledge-centred	Courses are taught within a specific professional context. Clinical updates within specific healthcare topics are discussed. Most courses provide the opportunity for hands-on clinical instruction with low student-teacher ratio.	Courses are taught within an interprofessional healthcare provider context. Supplemental resources are provided for later use within practice setting. Much opportunity exists for individual reflection on case studies and personal practice.
Assessment-centred	In our lecture programs, there is no form of assessment. Learners must simply attend to get their learning credits, as per accreditation criteria. (For example, you would get professional credit for attending a conference but not be tested on the content covered there – though there is extra credit to be earned if you write a reflection piece afterwards.) In our hands-on courses, there is some formal assessment, as well as over-the-shoulder coaching of clinical techniques.	Learners are tested using an online multiple choice test. However, there is no minimum grade to pass, as it would violate our current accreditation criteria.
Community-centred	Many participants attend specifically for the opportunity to interact with other practitioners in the community.	At present, there is no opportunity to interact with others. Interaction is strictly student-content.

As you can see, one of the biggest differences between our two types of courses (with the notable exception of the opportunity for hands-on-learning) is the ability (or not) to interact with other practitioners in the community. Our online courses are strictly used for knowledge transmission and have no capacity for interactivity with others. This is the biggest drawback of our online program, especially as the courses are designed with the hope of fostering interprofessional collaboration.

At present, our online courses may be taken at anytime by participants, but because they are offered free-of-charge, there are no funds to hire someone to facilitate online discussion forums. At the very least, I am hoping to set up a Twitter feed to encourage participants to interact with others who have taken our courses and/or have an interest in the material.

Reference:

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.

Online Affordances

Within the contexts of online learning its affordances, students and teachers are both consumers and producers of media. Digital citizenship and media literacies emphasize the importance of developing the essential skills and perspectives that enable us to interact with media in meaningful, productive and creative ways. For our students, this is an especially important area of focus, as these are skills that translate beyond the confines of classrooms or schools. Media literacies aim to enhance the sense of citizenship and creative expression that allow us to participate in the production of media while contributing to a collective intelligence, whether that be amongst students or professional colleagues. Building on the foundations of traditional literacy skills, media literacies are skills and approaches that can be applied to new media artifacts, such as blogs, wikis, games, graphics or movies.

The collaborative nature of the wiki, and the wider audience that the wiki entries would potentially reach, create a sense of greater importance for the need to revise and revisit work continually during the process of writing and creating. In my own grade 5/6 classroom, I found that my students took a keen interest in writing their entries initially, but would continue to revise their work as they realized that their entries were receiving an increasing number of views. Through this work, the students placed an importance in the process of writing, and they came to understand that their wiki entries weren’t a finished product, but rather a changing document that continued to be a work in progress. In this sense, the approach to new media literacies supported the students in further developing their traditional literacy skills.

Anderson (2008) discusses the ways through which the affordances of the web can be leveraged to enhance generalized learning contexts, and the importance of the roles that collaboration and reflection play in creating these contexts. The notion of “repackaging” content resonated with me, and I started thinking about how we, as educators, often repackage content for our learners both in terms of classroom and online learning. When we take texts or lectures and make these available to students online, we’ve simply given traditional methods of instruction the appearances of a 21^st century look, and Anderson offers guidance as to how we can take the affordances of new media to create transformational learning experiences.

Anderson’s ideas around the overlapping attributes of learning offer insight into how online and blended or flipped learning environments can move us away from the constraints of didactic content and traditional learning models. Teachers and students can benefit from more active, collaborative classroom learning, resulting from more meaningful, engaging conversations and interactions, both in terms of teacher-student and student-student connections. By removing the lecture component from classroom practice and shifting this emphasis onto the students to engage with at home, the time spent by students at school in the classroom environment can be more effectively utilized for inquiry and project based learning. Students access and learn the online content at home, and they return to school prepared with the knowledge to engage in meaningful tasks in the classroom. This places a considerable responsibility and onus on the part of the student (and parents) to ensure that content is learned at home in time for classroom application. For motivated and engaged students, this model seems to hold significant learning potential and possibilities, but for students who lack support or suitable learning environments at home, how would the flipped model appeal to the realities of their social and educational needs?

In terms of assessment, in online environments, students may decide which endeavours are most deserving of their time by determining where the greatest opportunity for reward exists. If the regurgitation of information on an exam is required for this reward, then students will aim to achieve according to this goal, despite the fact that these approaches limit the amount of real learning that takes place. Where the focus needs to be placed is upon providing varied assessment opportunities that allow students to demonstrate their learning in personalized and creative ways. Students are often assessed in situations where they are isolated from their peers, and essentially cut off from accessing information. In these assessment situations, students are not provided with opportunities to develop essential skills, and they are not responsible for taking ownership of assessment. Online learning offers affordances to help overcome these obstacles by allowing for meaningful, collaborative problem solving and the demonstration of creativity in developing a solution. Thereby, students are provided with affordances to further develop their problem solving skills, while continuing to build their personal resilience and perseverance when faced with difficulties or challenges during the learning process.

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.

Learning Attributes in the MET context

In the article “Towards a theory of online learning,” Anderson (2008) outlines four broad categories that must be addressed to create an effective learning experience: leaner, knowledge, assessment, and community. Overall, the courses I have taken in the MET program have addressed these four areas. However, some areas have received more attention in some courses than others.

Learner-centered

Anderson (2008) emphasises the importance of understanding what a learner brings to the learning context. This includes pre-requisite knowledge/understanding, misconceptions, and cultural perspectives (Anderson, 2008). In the MET program, I have seen this accomplished through preliminary discussion posts asking for initial thoughts and understanding on the subject matter. Further, many course have an “introduce yourself” forum where you can share your background and experience. With that said, I find most people focus on their profession versus themselves. Perhaps asking a set of culturally pertinent questions during course introductions would help. Otherwise, I think these methods are quite effective at addressing learner-centered needs.

Knowledge-centered

Anderson states that, “effective learning is both defined and bounded by the epistemology, language, and context of disciplinary thought” (2008, 49). I would say knowledge-centered attributes receive the most attention in the majority of educational contexts. After all, the purpose of education is to build and further knowledge. The MET program has addressed this through: course objectives, modules, readings, videos, and discussions. While these methods are effective, I don’t think they take advantage of the technology available such as wikis, podcasts, and tutorials. Using diverse mediums may also help address learner-centered needs by accounting for different learning styles.

Assessment-centered

Anderson highlights the importance of both formative evaluation and summative assessment that motivates, informs, and provides feedback to learners and teachers (2008). In the MET program this has taken the form of essays, reflections, discussion posts, creating e-learning platforms/content, and facilitating seminars. I have found feedback to be extremely beneficial but not always timely. Interestingly, I have yet to experience a quiz in the MET program. I believe this is due to the more hands on approach of the program.

Community-centered

Building a learning community online while very challenging, is very effective. Anderson states that learning communities can both support and challenge each other, leading to collaborative knowledge construction (2008). In my experience, some MET courses have been more successful than others at creating a community feel. This can be accomplished through discussion posts, group assignments, collaborative documents, live chats, and incorporating social media. I have mixed feelings about how MET addresses community. I feel more engaged and interested in courses with discussion and peer interaction but the asynchronous nature often takes away from the experience. Further, I find group work to be very challenging from a scheduling perspective and yet have had the most fun working with my peers. Perhaps incorporating optional live chats or online real-time offices hours would help balance these needs and challenges.

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 fromhttp://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf

My experience at UBC

The experience I had at my online masters can be 60% learner-to-content 30% learner-to-learner and 10% learner-to-teacher. Learner-to-content is the majority of my time as the course is an online program I have to self-study and engage with the content through research, reading, and building content. The online environment also allows for peer-to-peer engagement through chat, discussion boards, and other types of collaborations. Usually in the online environment the teacher is not always present and the engagement is limited with the learner.

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

Anderson’s Four-Fold Centred Approach

	in my TEACHING	in my LEARNING
Learner/ Learning centred	Consider the needs/ prior knowledge of students PYP/ IB program demands that educators assess prior knowledge and use this information to guide their teaching.	Sometimes the needs/ prior knowledge is considered but at the university level this practice is not always used/ appropriate. However, knowledge is usually scaffolded.
Knowledge centred	Concept driven and inquiry based Reflection is a major component in the inquiry cycle.	In my experience, adult learners in the MET program are given complete freedom to extend their knowledge, within a topic, without instructor restriction. Time is the only limiting factor to the amount of knowledge I acquire.
Assessment centred	PYP Units of Inquiry are designed collaboratively (within a grade level group and across a school) through a backwards planning model starting with the summative assessment.	My MET courses have all started by presenting a syllabus, reading list and assignment/ assessment description and due date from the first day. Learning, in most courses, has been purposely geared towards completion of the assignments/ assessments.
Community centred	In my 11 years of teaching, there has always been an element of “support and challenge” (2008a, 51) between and amongst my students. Year to year, this manifests in many different ways and sometimes it forms positive community while other times it presents ‘teachable moments.’	My MET experience has been highly positive. The course communities that I have participated in have overall been pleasant and productive learning experiences. Considering Anderson’s Characteristics of Participants in Online Communities : shared sense of belonging, trust, expectation of learning, and commitment to participate in and contribute to the community (2008a, 51), the characteristic that has been most problematic is commitment to participate and contribute when in group work, some team members are less accessible and less helpful. But as I said earlier this hasn’t made my experience in MET unmanageable.

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

End in Sight

One of the most interesting things that I took from the Anderson reading was the concept that ‘different learning outcomes are best learned through particular learning activities’ (62). That is to say that the method of instruction or delivery should be determined with the end goal in site. By carefully planning, curriculum leaders can provide adequate opportunities for student, teacher and content interactions, this is true for online and blended learning as well. This backwards version of planning is not new, but may not have been applied to eLearning in a robust way in the past. With new advances in technologies (specifically with video and streaming services), educators can provide meaningful learning experiences that build on the student, teacher, and content relationships. What was once defined by asynchronous communication (based on the postal system), eLearning can now provide students with interactive activities and meaningful learning experiences.

Unfortunately not all eLearning situations fully understand ‘good design’. I have had the misfortune to take my Honour Specialist Advanced Placement course through a Canadian University that used WebCT as its LMS. The experience was entirely text-based with little to no interaction between students and between students and teacher. Readings were assigned, assignments were given and feedback was often held back and restricted. There was no sense of community created (I couldn’t tell you the name of another person in the course) and as a result my learning suffered. Some of the MET courses at UBC have been a quantum leap forward. Video conferencing, blogs, Twitter and other social media outlets, have allowed students and teachers to create relationships around the content. These relationship nurture the course content and create feelings of belonging. Discussions evolve naturally in these types of environments – similar to a face-to-face learning experience. As technologies continue to improve, I foresee eLearning to become the preferred method of instruction for most students.

Anderson, MET and coming full circle

I’m pretty sure this Anderson reading was the first one I was ever assigned in my MET studies, so it’s nice to go back and read it nine courses later. The reading resonates more strongly this time as well because Bransford, Brown and Cocking’s How People Learn is a central text in ETEC 533, the other course I am currently taking. My pdf of Anderson tells me that on May 18th, 2013, I’d highlighted “Researchers have attempted to quantify students’ proficiency and comfort with online environments through use of survey instruments that measure learners’ Internet efficacy (Kirby & Boak, 1987)” (Anderson, 2008, p.48), wondering how this Kirby and Boak would have studied the Internet 8 years before it existed.

I had taken a Statistics course that was more distance learning (coincidentally, from Anderson’s Athabasca University the same year he wrote this, 2008), and had done my French teaching qualification through the ETFO, the public teacher’s union in Ontario, before I started MET. MET, however, has made such a thorough and indelible impression of online learning that I now remember little of those experiences.

Under the heading “Learner-Centred”, Anderson distinguishes between “catering to the whims and peculiarities of each particular learner” and “awareness of the unique cognitive structures and understandings that learners bring” (p. 47). Being familiar now with Bransford et al., I have a deeper understanding of their idea of bringing a student’s misconception (especially in science and math) and acknowledging it in the process of correcting it to provide a basis for further learning. One MET example was in this course, where I was unfamiliar with blogging though it was assumed we had all blogged before, and my unfamiliarity sent me into a tailspin of confusion in week 2 when we posted incomprehensible code and I thought I was supposed to engage in discussions about it.

Under “Knowledge-Centred”, Anderson asserts that “Each discipline or field of study contains a world view that provides unique ways of understanding and talking about knowledge” (p. 49). To “discipline or field”, I would add medium, because learning on the Internet also provides different ways of understanding and talking about knowledge when compared to a face-to-face classroom situation, as Anderson mentions. For example, though I heard Constructivism mentioned earlier in Teacher’s College, I’ve become very familiar with its tenets here in MET, and I don’t think I can separate these ideas from the Prezis and Powtoons in which I’ve experienced them.

Assessment-centred learning is very big in the Toronto District School Board, where on any given unit in any given subject, we are supposed to post “Learning Goals” and student co-constructed “Success Criteria” on the board. The learning goals come directly from the curriculum. I think it’s more difficult in online learning than in a physical classroom space for a teacher to just point that out to a student and say “remember what we’re learning; whether you are showing that you know this or not is what determines your grade”.

Community-based learning here online is, of course, much different than in a classroom. Who is challenging the teacher and who is ingratiating (not the terminology we would use among our peers in a classroom!) themselves to the teacher is much more obvious in a classroom, and has a larger role in group dynamics. I wrote in one of my early MET posts that the idea of online community is a bit of an illusion to me; I can’t remember the names of my colleagues — even ones with whom I worked and video- conferenced with last term — in an online course, whereas I still remember most of my classmates in Teacher’s College 7 years ago. I went for beer after class with those people, and learned a bit about their personal lives; I heard the tone in their voices and saw the expressions on their faces as they reacted to those things, and without such interaction, I feel interpersonal relations are pretty shallow, though I’ve certainly interacted with some colleagues in MET who I’m sure I could be friends with in real life if the situation ever presented itself. The upside of this lack of real, personal interaction online is that we focus more on our work!

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

Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., & National Research Council (U.S.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Learning Types For Everyone

My experience with the four centred learning types vary quite distinctly. I have never taught an online course, so my perspective is only from the four courses that I have participated in within the MET program.

Learner: I feel that this is one trickier aspects of the four types that Anderson brings up. It is all about accessibility, flexibility, and making sure the learner is given the opportunity for success, whatever that may entail. So while I feel that online learning allows learner-centred learning it doesn’t necessarily deliver learner-centred learning for everyone. Mainly because not every student has the same needs and desires for their learning environment. Personally, I find online a difficult platform for myself due to my expectations for my learner-centred learning.

Knowledge: For online learning, this seems pretty standard and well supported. Not only does multimedia allow us the capabilities of delivering the engaging presentation styles of master teachers but the Internet has proven to be a great source of knowledge. It is fantastic to be able to consolidate all this relevant information into an online resource that is structured for learning about appropriate topics. It always reminds me of the days in undergrad when we had to buy an entire science textbook for only half the chapters. With my experiences in online programs, we rarely have to deal with excessive information.

Assessment: My experiences with assessments within the MET program have been positive. However, they are almost all project-based or written responses. There doesn’t seem to be the more common types of assessments that would occur in other types of programs. Since the MET program is fairly unique in its educational direction, the assessments of our knowledge seem appropriate for the subject matter. I personally like working on multimedia projects and think they are engaging as well as challenging. I do worry that some people that prefer different types of assessments would have a difficult time with the kind we get in MET.

Community: I have had a challenging time with this learning focus in an online platform. There’s just something about building community online that just doesn’t quite resonate with me. I think there is tremendous room for improvement for online learning communities and that we are really just at the beginning of those those communities will allow us to interact with one another. So while I struggle with building/contributing to a community, I have hope that some tool or form is going to connect with me in the future.

The thing I got most out of Anderson’s article was that I was reminded on how different learners can be. All of the points he brings up can vary in importance from learner to learner and especially teachers. We are at a great time right now, what with the ubiquity of online learning, multimedia development tools, social platforms, mobile technology, etc. and I think meaningful interactions are happening and maturing all the time in the online environment. The one tool that really excites me beyond what we are currently used to is virtual reality. VR is going to give us an immersion that is going to blow people away. For some learners this is going to change everything for them. I could definitely see myself being one of those people.

Has it ‘MET’ expectations

Prior to starting the MET program I have not enrolled in any online courses. I think that for the most part the courses I have taken have strived to create the learning environment described by Anderson (2008). I would agree with some of my classmates who have argued that “learner-centered” should be renamed “learning”-centered so that the needs of the teacher, institutions and society as a whole are factored in (p.47). Through the course introductions teachers have been able to gain a better understanding of the variety of workplace settings that the students are working in. This provides insight into their prerequisite knowledge. One area that has not particularly been emphasized in the MET courses has been acknowledging cultural variations with respect to how students interpret and build knowledge (pg. 47). I am not certain whether it is because the majority of the students have studied in Canada so there is not much of a need. There may be a need to change in the future if future MET students from overseas enroll in the program.

All of the courses have included a combination of formative and summative assessments in various forms. Some courses have required the completion of three short papers each with progressively greater value in the overall grading of the course. The feedback for these papers were valuable to both the student and teacher to evaluate a sample of writing. The courses all include a final paper or major project component in which the knowledge gained throughout the modules should be applied. Of course, being knowledge-centered is not complete without the opportunities for reflection of one’s own thinking (pg. 49) as evidenced by our ePortfolio in this course.

The community-centered component of Anderson’s learning environment has been quite evident in all the MET courses as well as before starting the program through the MET Forum. The forum allowed new students to start messaging others students/alumni prior to starting the program. This forum allowed me to learn from other students what courses they took and how valuable they found them for their own learning. The community-centered feel becomes more evident I found with each subsequent course you take and realize that you have worked with some classmates in a group project before. The group work has challenged me to become more open to different opinions and come to a consensus when deciding on the direction of project. These collaborative skills are invaluable for dealing with situations in the work place.

In creating meaningful interactions, I will consider the learning objectives and how the knowledge needs to be deployed. The learning technologies will serve to provide multimodal options for the learners such that differing learning styles are considered. A combination of both synchronous and asynchronous communications channels will enable both the introverted and extroverted learners to benefit.

References