Category Archives: D: Interactions

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)

Jo

Even before I knew it was a ‘thing’, I’ve been using the internet as a way of furthering my own learning in personal areas of interest, as I’m sure many of us who miss the ‘Net’ generation moniker have.  Before it was more than a burgeoning service and system, and certainly before it was explicitly being used in education, the net has been a place where motivated individuals could create their own learner, knowledge, community, and event assessment-centered experiences.  In my case, it was learning simple code to create a website to house my teenage attempts at artwork and writing, mostly fanworks but also including some original work.  As I was a self-directed learner, I was self-assessing my areas of knowledge and weakness as I went, and looked for teachers both in peers and online (prior to the days of YouTube it was written tutorials).  The knowledge acquisition was highly contextualized, embedded in my desire to create an attractive site that worked without bugs, and the assessment came in the form of feedback from visitors who either could or could not enjoy the work I hosted on the site.  I was constantly self-checking the code, my understanding of the process, and re-vamping the site as I either learned more or felt the need to mix it up.

As a teacher, I think the greatest challenge thus far has been creating interactions with students in a blended classroom environment that both encourages their own autonomy and self-efficacy but also supports them at their present levels of ability.  In schools where I have recently been working, inquiry-based learning has been a major point of discussion and development, and I believe it’s because it encompasses the four attributes of effective learning as described by Anderson (2008).  True inquiry-based learning is not something I have been able to achieve as of yet, but I have been making attempts to use its principles more and more, in that I give the students a framework within which they can exercise inquiry-based principles.  This has made a world of difference in the amount of interaction with my students, which as Anderson (2008) explains on p. 55, “is a key learning component in constructivist learning theories and in inducing mindfulness in learners”.

Providing students with learning goals, with may be skill AND content based, and then giving them license to explore within those, has lead to some of my favourite teaching experiences.  An example took place with a grade 12 human development course last term, where the learning goals (pulled from the Ontario curriculum) where these:

Learning Goals:
I will be able to..

• Social-Emotional Development: demonstrate an understanding of social-emotional development throughout the lifespan and of ways of influencing such development;
• Personality and Identity: demonstrate an understanding of various influences on personality development and identity formation throughout the lifespan;
• Factors Affecting Social-Emotional Development: demonstrate an understanding of how factors affect social-emotional development, with an emphasis on the process of socialization.

They had to also meet learning goals related to thesis development and choosing an appropriate mode of communication (they could choose between an essay, website, or presentation), but within the framework of those learning goals they were free to choose their topics based on their areas of interest, as piqued through in-class lessons we had participated in together.

One student, as part of her exploration of personality and identity and factors that effect it, wanted to research introversion and extroversion and how physiological factors might affect these traits.  Through her own research, she discovered – and in fact, taught me – about recent studies that show how the blood flow in the brains of introverts versus extroverts differs, and what this means for information processing.  She found this originally on a .com site, but thanks to good citation, we put our heads together and found primary source case studies (I used my UBC library access to help dig these up), and she used these to learn more about this fascinating development.  I believe this was an instance, rare as it may feel at times, where the “students transform the inert information passed to them from another and construct it into knowledge with personal application and value” (p. 55).  I stressed students use the internet with academic integrity, and mirrored this in my own use of a class Wikispace and through explicit lessons.  At times I had students share or construct their work with each other by building pages on the wiki, but I also tried to emphasize the nature of the internet AS a community, one in which they must have responsible conduct in academic roles – and in general, although they did not generally show an understanding of having one authentic self in all of their online personae.  Assessment took place on an individual and community level in the form of check-lists and peer assessments, as well as with me in almost constant-conferencing.

What I seek to learn is even better ways of pursuing these kinds of interactions, especially at the younger levels.  I’ve been able to play with these methods in grade 10, but those students needed a lot more guidance within their frameworks.  As of yet this is the case with inquiry-based learning for me – it works well with students who are curious AND responsible, but those who are not struggle to find meaningful connections to the curriculum that also meet the academic standard.  I taught myself how to make a simple site, but could I have passed a computer-science class, at the same age?  Probably not.  I think new understanding of technology and its potential provides teachers with the ability to meet students where they are, help them find themselves within the curriculum, and then push them within and outside of it.

—

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

This is my first experience with an online course so I do not have anything to compare it to, and, as we are in the middle of this course, I can not fully reflect on my experience yet. My lack of experience with online courses really makes this discussion post difficult for me, so I’m going to focus on how I would approach creating meaningful interactions.

When I finished the Anderson (2008) reading, my first thought was, “How can I add interactivity while honouring the culture of my students?” Anderson does state that “[a] learner-centred context is not one in which the whims and peculiarities of each individual learner are slavishly catered to” (p.47) and I completely agree. If that were the case, everyone in the world would need to be a course designer in order to make a course that’s perfect for every student. However, interactivity is a contentious topic at my school. While my school is moving toward 21st-century learning and teaching, overwhelmingly we’re still focused on student-content interaction. Teachers and students have been reprimanded for classrooms being disorderly or too loud. I’ll admit, the traditional Chinese teaching style is traditionally student-content interaction–students read, students listen to a lecture, students complete homework, students get feedback, repeat. Relying on this type of interaction alone is the complete opposite of what Anderson suggests, so, of course, my knee-jerk reaction is to start adding other types of interaction immediately. But I am cautious and unsure of how to proceed because it’s important to understand that this is the culture of learning my students are accustomed to. While I wouldn’t go as far as to say they prefer it, it is habit and habits are hard to break.

This brings me back to Anderson’s (2008) comment that, for learner-centred approaches, teachers must respect cultural attributes (p.47). Student-content interaction (as I described it earlier) is a cultural attribute of learning in Chinese schools. I recognize that, as students of a Chinese-Canadian school, students are required to face both Chinese and Canadian cultural attributes, in fact, that is a part of our mission statement. The question is, how best to implement additional types of interaction for our incoming grade 10 students who may know nothing but student-content interaction?

I think the answer is implement slowly with a lot of scaffolding. Anderson (2008) mentions scaffolding in his discussion of knowledge-centred approaches to learning so students can grow their own knowledge (p.49). My previous experience in introducing various types of interactivity (not technology based–I’m talking group work, and peer review activities) is that the students don’t know how to handle new experiences unless they are prepared. I haven’t been using learning technology for interactions beyond student-content yet, so the rest of this post is hypothetical–it is how I propose I will prepare for and use learning technology to help create meaningful interactions.Choose wisely.

Step 1: Choose wisely.

Anderson (2008) says that a challenge of Assessment-Centred approaches is “understanding what is most useful — rather than most easily – assessed is challenging” (p49).  While this refers to choosing assessment tools, it applies to using learning technology to create interaction as well. I need to balance what will work for me, what will work for the students, and what will work within the constraints of our tech systems (ultimately, I imagine that I will rely on Bates’ (2014) SECTIONS model). Navigating the needs and constraints will be challenging, but not impossible.

Step 2: Start slow.

When I’ve chosen an appropriate avenue for interaction, I will start slowly. While immersing students in an interactive environment could shock them into adapting, I don’t think that’s the best course of action. I think the best option, in the beginning, is to continue with student-content interaction, adding the features Anderson (2008) mentions that the Web affords (virtual labs, online computer-assisted learning tutorials, etc) (p.58). Then, introduce student-student interactivity; I would love to begin with peer review and online group work.

Step 3: Challenge students at a steady pace.

As the students become more accustomed to interactivity beyond student-content, I propose to continue adding opportunities for interactivity in a manner that challenges the students, while maintaining a steady pace. Anderson (2008) suggests that we need theory to take advantage of the NET and to avoid obsolete contexts (p.46). That being said, if I do not continue to introduce different opportunities for interaction at a steady pace, there is a risk of being left behind as affordances of the NET advance beyond the abilities and comfort levels of my students. The area that my students need to be exposed to the most is engaging with content without a teacher dictating what they need to find. I think my students would benefit from working together in groups–it’s essential for their post-secondary experiences and it’s something they don’t get to practice enough. However, student-student interaction is difficult in grade 10 because the culture here is pro “helping” (cheating, copying) and it takes time to move past “helping” to mutually beneficial interactions. But, we do make a dent in it–it’s just that it takes time and reinforcement.

I know that my approach is dangerous in that I seem to be catering to my students needs, thus creating a situation where I could quickly experience burnout. It’s not a perfect approach, but I think it’s a start for balancing the current teaching/learning environment and the demand for added interaction.

It’s a shame that, at this moment, this is only a hypothetical situation for me–the climate and timing are not right for a making drastic changes to the program. However, my situation does reinforce Anderson’s (2008) argument for the use of a theoretical framework when approaching online learning and it has definitely helped me in my considerations for my Moodle course and it is something I will refer to when I am ready to make a move and start making changes to my course.

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) Teaching in a digital age. (Chapter 8). Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

In my school we have small class sizes and frequent absenteeism. Therefore this year I’ve decided to try teaching a blended humanities classroom. In that way students can follow along when they miss school but also are guaranteed a rich experience in the classroom. I wa given course shells on Moodle but no training. I’ve decided to work with Moodle for our second assignment so that I can better work with this platform in the future. Because of this I’d like to analyse the failings in the Moodle course shells by contrasting them with the MET program and using Anderson’s attributes of learning as a guide. That way I will identify areas for improvement in the course shells.

Learner Centred

All of the MET course that I have taken use discussion board introductions “to provide incentive and opportunity for students to share their understandings, their culture, and the unique aspects of themselves” (48). Indeed I learned a lot about where my classmates hail from, and that informations is useful, especially in understanding their unique contributions in the discussion forum. This is in contrast to the Moodle sites I was given for my classes. They simply jump right into content.

Knowledge Centered

I think that the MET program allows students to be brought into the  “discourse and the knowledge structures that undergird discipline thinking (49) though the readings and videos we are asked to explore throughout the course. We also have to take theory courses to broaden our understanding. I have noticed the same readings assigned several times in different classes and I think this is to make sure that we share the same knowledge base. Knowledge centered classrooms “also need [to give] opportunities to reflect upon their own thinking” (49). Most assignments in the MET program give the opportunity to reflect but in the moodle courses this is never provided. I would like to add more room for this.

Assessment Centered

A problem most instructors and designers face it finding what is “usefully – rather than most easily – assessed” (49) In the MET program this is often solves through peer assessment but are high school students aware enough to make this effective? The Moodle shells I have are entirely assessed summatively. There are tests in some of the courses but much of them is project based. This is fine in my situation but I could see how the marking would be difficult for a teacher with larger class sizes. I would also like to add more formative assessments somehow.

Community Centered

I find that with the MET program being community centered is very important. There are always discussion boards to negotiate ideas and give life to the readings. In additions, there are frequent group projects. Depending on students one class might come to a different understanding of the material than another. I find that with the high school moodle courses, while there is a discussion board, the work is primarily individual. Not much of a community is developed. I try to remedy this by exploring the topic together initially with frequent class discussions I would like to try to put at least some of this into the online environment.

Anderson’s categories present a useful way of thinking about online learning and definitely provide some food for thought when it comes to assignment 2 and modifying my current Moodle shells.

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

As I was reading the article, I was picturing primarily the online learning environment that we are using in this master’s program. I was wondering, does learning need to be all of: community-centred, knowledge-centred, learner-centred, and assessment-centred for effective learning to occur. In other words are each of these characteristics weighted equally in their impact on effective learning? What about if we vary the context (face-to-face versus online), the learner (child versus adult), or the content (math versus how to fly a hang glider)?”

I began questioning why I hadn’t been thinking about the learning in relation to my own classroom of elementary students. The quick answer is, the delivery of our course is completely online, whereby my classroom instruction is a blended environment of both face-to-face and online. I am interested to explore how these learning theories apply also to the blended classroom. If learner-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment-centered and community-centered environments are essential elements in both face-to-face and online, would they be even more effective with a combination of both?

I particularly liked Prensky’s list of best practices for the various learning outcomes. He says, “ask not how students learn, but more specifically how do they learn what?” (Prensky, 2001). Anderson continues to state the belief that all of these activities can be achieved through online community activities or independent study activities (Anderson, 2008). I’d be interested to explore at a more detailed level, which activities would be best supported by face-to-face and which through e-learning. Schools have the option to harness the best of both worlds, if in fact we learn which option demonstrates best practice.

In my personal experience, I have used the D2L platform, similar to Blackboard. Even with young Elementary students, many of the features of the platform connect with the 4 types of learning environments mentioned in the article. Teaching students how to share through threaded discussions, author blogs, collaborate through document sharing such as Google Docs and student & teacher generated surveys and quizzes are some of the ways I tried to increase meaningful interactions. I would like to move into students having greater input into online content. Students could post videos (self-created or found) to demonstrate learning, create their own post topics and request feedback on work samples they have chosen i.e. piece of art, testing procedure for a science experiment, etc.

References

Anderson, T. (2008). Toward a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.) Theory and Practice of Online Learning, Chapter 2 (pp. 45-74).

Retrieved from: http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

As my only formal online learning experience, being enrolled in UBC MET has changed my perspective of what a learner-centred environment can look like. As Anderson (2008) states:

“we must be careful to recognize that learner-centred contexts must also meet the needs of the teacher, the institution, and of the larger society that provides support for the student… For this reason, I have argued […] that this attribute may be more accurately labelled as learning-centred, as opposed to learner-centred.” (p.47)

This particular reading was assigned in my first course in the program, and it is somewhat serendipitous to re-read it now in one of my last courses. In the beginning of the program especially, I felt very resistant to assignments or protocols that didn’t align with these concepts of best online educational practice that Anderson (2008) outlines, and more specifically, ones that didn’t take into account my personal teaching and learning contexts. While he does touch on the importance of contextual connection for formation of communities, it is also important to consider perspectives outside of your own as a student, such as what I am experiencing here in ETEC 565A. For example, I have never taught formal courses online and I have no intention of doing so in the immediate future, but considering how my approaches need to change in order to complete these assignments is both stretching my thinking and helping me develop empathy for online course creators. Learner-centredness isn’t just about pandering to the wants and needs of a learner, but also about supporting them in the moments of discomfort that occur in the learning process. But yes, some autonomy within those contexts is nice, too, whether for tools and content involved in the creative process.

For the most part, the MET courses I’ve taken have attempted to build peer-peer connections through the promotion of knowledge-building communities (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994). Particularly, this would involve the building of understanding through asynchronous peer discussions. Peer motivation was frequently high in pushing understandings and asking questions to promote further learning. Sometimes this would include bringing in outside sources to support thinking within discussions. It was infrequent, however, for instructors to get involved in discussions. After asking a few instructors about this early in MET, they posited that instructor involvement often acted to shape opinion and create an inorganic learning experience for students. Later in the journey, I’ve found that this opinion will differ from instructor to instructor, but overall, they participate less than I would have imagined at the outset. (Natasha seems to be an exception to that rule and is very present and involved.)

Assessments in MET courses were often built around autonomous choice with specified learning goals such as development case-based reasoning skills (Rizzo, 1998), conclusive and confident discussion of nuanced topics, or effective media creation. These opportunities for learning sometimes provided feedback for future learning, but, unfortunately, I often found that either feedback was minimal or not informative enough for improvement in later assignments. Additionally, I’m not sure to the degree that these assessments would inform future teaching on behalf of the instructor. For the most part, I’m guessing it wasn’t that responsive of a process, as it seemed that course content remained the same regardless of overall performance by the cohorts I was involved in. In short, I found that I had to be my own advocate throughout my online graduate learning experience; if you don’t ever ask for the support, you’ll never know the answer, even if it’s a simple “I can’t help you there.”

As for how I might use the tools to promote interactions within my own courses, I’m certainly thinking about the blending of asynchronous and synchronous communications over several components of the course. I want to provide channels that students can choose from to meet them where they are comfortable, while still stretching understandings of online navigation and tool use. For example, I really enjoyed the opportunity to speak with Natasha to clarify questions re: Assignment 2. These types of short and simple chats – which can be archived for those who can’t make it – are great ways to provide synchronous and connected communications, and definitely enhance the ‘community feel’ of the course itself.

References

Anderson, T. (2008a). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton AB: Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf

Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265-283. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466822

Rizzo, A-M. (1998). Inventing narratives in ethical reasoning in an administrative ethics course. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 4(1), 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40215365