Category Archives: Class Discussion

Contrasting the MET Program and Moodle shells

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

Learning Attributes Online

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.

Mobile

At my workplace the focus is on adult education, so there is little, if any, regulation of student mobile devices.

I have sat through lectures where adult learners were distracted by mobile devices. However, I don’t believe the instructor or institute should create policies to control their use at a university level. It is my personal belief that by the time students are adult learners they should have gained the skills to self-regulate. This would be a component of digital literacy at a grade school level, or high school level. But I digress.

At the Justice Institute, where most of the training involves public safety, many of the training programs use mobile devices. For example, in the Primary Care Paramedic program, the text uses QR codes to link to training videos. When the students are practicing on their own, they refer to these videos to see if they are doing the procedures correctly. Most students use their own devices, but i-pads are available for signing out in the library. Mobile devices are used by Instructors as well. When the Fire Fighter students are being evaluated on their practical knowledge, the Instructors grade them on i-pads. This way the students, get immediate feedback online, and via generated e-mail and know what to focus on for the retest.

Mobile devices are used during Praxis Simulations communications. These simulations involve different public safety groups in a “real world scenarios” and the communications during the sim occurs in real-time and are as realistic as possible. For example, the Instructor reveals specific information and “dispatches” it to the Fire Fighters. As the Fire Fighters gather the information from the scene, they report back to the other Instructor and other parties involved, such as Police or Paramedics.

The JIBC has embraced mobile for education, and instructors and staff are willing to test and try new ways to interact and engage students. It may be the nature of the training, which lends itself to mobile learning.

Online Adult Learning in MET

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

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

Assessment or Evaluation?

Planning for learning is, according to Wiggins & McTighe (2005), “to be more thoughtful and specific about our purposes and what they imply” (p. 14). Using a planning methodology such as the backward design of Wiggins and McTighe (2005), is a great place to start. When designing assessment methods, thought needs to be given to the purpose of the assessment, and those that are being assessed. Despite the pitfalls outlined by Brown (2001), I believe the challenge I will have in the assessment methods I choose, is that they will be used with teachers. Teachers, and learning, and feedback, and improvement, are all words intricately woven into perceptions of self-efficacy for teachers. After all, teaching learners is what teachers do. In order to assess for the planned learning objectives, I am going to need to build motivation for “student” improvement in such a way that sets aside performance posturing/anxiety/paralysis and helps them forget, for the moment, that they are teachers [read: are learning].

References

Brown, G. (2001). Assessment series 3. Assessment: a guide for lecturers. LTSN Generic Centre: York.

Wiggins, G. McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=hL9nBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

Getting Advice from a Gamer

Most of my online or mixed-mode course experience has been a bit generous on the assessment and knowledge, and a bit lean on the community and learner.

Anderson (2008) outlines tools that would help facilitate knowledge-centred experience need to connect the big-picture with the fire-hose abundance of information in a way where students can personalize and “grow their own knowledge and discipline-centred discoveries” (p. 49). These would draw on the specific knowledge of the discipline as well as that of the community members. Examples of this in our Connect course these have looked like:

Articles, chapters, and excerpts in the library course reserve list;
Extensive course outlines detailing objectives, scope and sequence;
Static pages of how-to-set-up WordPress, and other accounts.

Assessment-centred attributes are characterized as being “project and workplace-based, constructed collaboratively, benefit from peer and expert review and which are infused with opportunity and requirement for self-assessment” (p. 50). In our Connect course, assessment examples have looked like:

Reflection assignments in the form of case studies and interpretations;
Collaborative assignments (evaluation rubric);
ePortfolio;
Creation of LMS.

Community-centred attributes, according to Wilson (1997) are those where participants have a “shared sense of belonging, trust, expectation of learning and a commitment to participate in and contribute to community.” It also needs to be flexible to reflect the members of the community and reflexive, meaning: continuously able to recalibrate to the changes in that community. In our Connect course these have looked like:

Evaluation rubric;
Pros and Cons piece;
Discussion forums (“Saying Hello,” queries about the course (etc.), and reflections on posts);
RSS feed.

Finally learner-centred (or “learning-centred” Anderson, 2008, p. 47) must start with an understanding of the learner as having understandings, culture, and uniqueness, and be able to provide means and occasion for that to be shared. It must continue with an understanding that the community of learners and how that community interfaces with the subject matter will also have understandings, culture, and uniqueness. In our Connect course these have looked like:

Discussion forum (“Saying Hello”);
Reflection posts such as this one where the learner is asked to apply reading to own situation;

As far as using creating meaningful interactions within the LMS course we are to create, the learning technologies tools used will need to match the objectives sought within the structure of relationships created. There are so many web-based tools available now compared to those outlined in the Anderson article. Knowing which to use would need to be a reflexive enterprise in a live course, as each of those four will interact and have varying influence with each other given different situations. Prensky’s list (2001, p. 14) will be one I will be consulting as I continue to refine the work I’m doing in Moodle.

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

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2005). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 3-31. Retrieved from http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Ch3-Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning.pdf

Mobile device policies in Ontario

There has been a shift in mindset toward the use of technology in K-12 classrooms in Ontario. In fact, the provincial ministry of education has led different research projects studying the link between the use of different types of technologies for learning and student engagement and achievement (Jenson, 2011; Shields, 2012; Shields, 2013). The conclusions drawn in these published study reports state that in classes where technology was used to enhance student learning, teachers noticed a renewed student engagement and better overall achievement (Shields, 2013). This has led to new initiatives by the government to support the purchase and use of mobile technologies in all Ontario English and French school boards.

My school board was not ready for this. Large sums of money were received for the purchase of mobile devices and improvement of our infrastructure (i.e. Wi-fi access in schools, improvement in bandwidth, etc.). Most of our schools now have a Wi-fi network reserved for the board’s mobile devices and another (very limited) Wi-fi network for students and teachers personal devices. The school board’s official has not yet revised its policies (it is a work in progress), therefore, it is still forbidden for students to use their cellphones in our schools. Some schools don’t enforce the policy, some schools do. It becomes very challenging for teachers that want to use technology for learning projects in their classrooms but don’t have enough devices for all their students. Since there is not yet a defined policy, our schools are very heterogenous when it comes to technology. Some school principals have put aside important parts of their school budget to purchase mobile devices for students. Some schools prefer to wait for an official policy from the board.

We have a lot of challenges, but the two greatest ones are to create a flexible policy for the use of mobile devices that will allow teachers to have a clear view of the board’s vision. Since we are further north of the province, access to proper Internet speeds (bandwidth) is also a big issue and a big investment (if we compare with boards in the south who can choose from a variety of internet providers).

References

Jenson, J., Taylor, N., & Fisher, S. (2011). Critical review and analysis of the issue of “skills, technology and learning”. Retrieved from https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/Jenson_ReportEng.pdf

Shields, C. (2012). A shifting landscape: pedagogy, technology, and the new terrain of innovation in a digital world. Retrieved from https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/Shifting_LandscapeE.pdf

Shields, C. (2013). Extending the Landscape and Enlarging the Vision: Pedagogy, Technology, and Innovative Practices in a Digital World. Retrieved from https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/research/Extend_LandscapeE.pdf

Mobile Devices in the Legal Context

As I have mentioned in earlier posts, I work in Professional Development at a law firm. Our department runs both optional and mandatory CPD (Continuing Professional Development) programs for a wide range of audiences. Mobile devices are a staple at our firm. The firm issues devices to all lawyers, law students, and senior management (or they can opt to use their own phone with firm access). Despite the prevalence of mobile devices, they are often not incorporated into our learning programs.

The firm does not really have a position when it comes to using mobile devices in learning. It is a given that most (if not all) attendees will have their mobile devices at our programs. Lawyers especially like to be connected at all times and will often check their email during our programs. You will even see facilitators checking their phones during group activities. Sometimes I think this points to a lack of engagement, but often it is driven by workload. The downside of live sessions is that they will never be convenient for everyone. If you are in the middle of a large deal it is challenging to disconnect and focus on a CPD program.

In the past, we have used polling software like Poll Everywhere and Socrative at our programs and the feedback has been positive. Participants enjoy the real time results and like seeing how they stack up against their peers. I also think it adds a level of interest and “fun” to our programs. The main challenge when utilizing such technology is teaching facilitators how to use it. Our programs are typically delivered by SMEs and they have varying levels of comfort with technology. It is not always feasible to have a member of our team who is well versed in the technology at the program.

With that said, I think we are missing an opportunity by not utilizing mobile devices more. As the Ciampa article pointed out, mobile devices (when used properly) can lead to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In the case of our lawyers, I see the extrinsic rewards being slightly more appealing: competition, cooperation, and recognition. We have found friendly competition and bragging rights to be highly motivating in the past. However, the Ciampa article talked a lot about learning apps and games. I don’t think there are any learning apps/games that would have content reflecting our firms’ procedures, standards, and expectations. The same (to a certain extent) can be said of social media. The firm’s social media and privacy policy make utilizing applications like Twitter a bit challenging.

Any suggestions of software/programs that can be used in a professional context?

References

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96.

Mobile Technology in the Classroom

“Let us know what is the position of your workplace regarding the use of mobile devices in the classroom/for learning. Who is allowed to use mobile devices: teachers, students? What for? What are the obstacles? Are there any success stories? How does the use of mobile devices change the way we teach and learn?”

I can say that I am very lucky to be working in a school district that embraces technology and is not afraid of change. The Vancouver School Board has a district wide policy on the use of mobile devices, but it is up to the teacher on how it is implemented in the classroom. This allows me the flexibility and the freedom to decide when and how I want to use mobile devices; ie. cellphones, iPads or iPods. I personally am ‘all for’ using mobile devices in the classroom. Our school has 2 iPad carts containing a total of 50 iPads for student use and we just received a mobile iPad educational cart that will replace all overheads, TV’s and projectors.

One tricky obstacle that I do face is in my grade 7 classroom where I job share at the moment with another teacher. Her policy with mobile devices is different than mine. I allow my students to occasionally listen to music with their earphones in, since some students are more focused this way. If they are doing their work and not distracting anybody then why not? If the iPad’s are not available (already booked by another teacher), I will allow my students to use their cellphones to do research or look up something for an assignment. Some students also never write down in their agenda and it’s like pulling teeth to get them to write their homework down, so I will allow them to take a picture of the homework board with their cellphones. My jobshare teacher does not allow this.

Traxler (2007) mentions that, “…mobile learning delivers learning to the learner when and where they want it” (as cited in Ciampa, 2013, p. 92). I completely agree with this statement. Most of my students own a phone so allowing them the flexibility of using their own technology is very convenient. My class also has a SMART Board and I will use this if I want to show something to the entire class. I don’t completely agree when Ciampa (2013) states that the teacher named Natasha doesn’t see the same focused activity of her students when using other devices such as the SMART Board. My students love it. I use it throughout the day and I’ve had students come up to me to say that they like how I always use it and in the manner that I do. After watching the video in our week 5 Module which mentions the website Poll Everywhere, I asked my students the question, “Should cellphones be allowed in class?” We were all able to see the results instantly and it was a hit amongst them.

I’ve taught in many classrooms before where there was not one piece of technology to use. I can’t imagine now not being able to use or teach with some type of technology; let alone the students not being able to use it.

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96

Still navigating the 20th century

It is spectacular to imagine a room filled with on-task and motivated learners using their mobile devices to engage with the content and access individualized learning. Unfortunately, this does not reflect my past experience. As I am currently on sabbatical, the following account is a little out of date and I truly hope the situation will have improved when I return.

If asked to describe my school in regards to 21^st century skills, I would have to place it in the turn of the 20^th century. In spite of the presence of SmartBoards in every class, my department mirrors very closely the institutionalized mass schooling of early industrial society as described Kalantzis and Cope (2010); classroom desks are in rows, learning is teacher-centered based on facts and memorization and students are quite passive in their learning. Within the department I was known for my bizarre open-ended projects, interestingly arranged desks and lack of control on my students for although not off-task they were not perfectly silent.

As such it is not hard to conclude that we are nowhere near the situation described by Ciampa (2013), and therefore, nowhere near helping students in the development of 21^st century skills. The in-class use of cell phones or mobile devices by students is forbidden unless part of subject-specific (English, French, Dance) educational activities, such as filming in English class or selecting music for a project. We are to send any student caught using a mobile device to the administrators. We are no longer allowed to confiscate devices out of fear of loss, theft or damage. The reasons provided to the students for the ban on electronic devices include: the possibility of using the devices for bullying and/or filming others without their consent, the fear of theft and damage to devices and the possibility of peer pressure to have the most recent model of electronic device.

Interestingly enough, I believe that incorporating mobile devices in the classroom and modelling how technology should be used could alleviate many of these issues. Having the students realize that their devices are more than entertainment tools but can be used in a working environment would be a huge step towards the proper management of electronics. I believe that the true reason electronics are banned at my school is not because this technology is inherently distracting or that the students do not know how to use it, but that the teachers in general are uncertain on how to consistently and properly implement the technology in order to increase the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of students described by Ciampa (2013).

References:

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82-96.

Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 200-222.