ETEC 524: Learning Technologies – Selection, Design, & Application

A Summary of the Flight Path

My Flight Path for ETEC 524 took a practical focus as my initial review of the course content suggested we would be taking a closer look at concrete instructional design through the practice of applying the ideas and elements presented in our own units of learning. Within my Flight Path I identified specific goals: First, I was interested in learning about new and different technological tools. There are a handful of digital apps I have tested and explored throughout the MET program, but the Pot of Gold section provided in this course indicated that we would be taking a closer look at what tools are available, and how we may integrate them into our respective teaching environments. Next, I wanted to gain a deeper understanding of what ‘good design’ in learning management systems looks like. I have a strong design sense and an interest in aesthetics, but I often question how to meaningfully apply this to learning environments. Additionally, I have discovered various technological tools, inspiring web-based applications and engaging pedagogical practices, but have struggled to find ways to implement them effectively in my position of educator at a provincial government office. For this reason, one of my goals was to consider how to directly connect my learning with my work, and identify whether there are any technologies or practices I could advocate for in my workplace. Finally, I expressed a desire to further explore active engagement and community building in digital spaces, an interest that I have carried with me throughout the MET program. This concept is in line with one of the First Peoples Principles of learning, “learning is holistic, reflexive, reflective, experiential, and relational (focused on connectedness, on reciprocal relationships, and a sense of place)” (FNESC, 2015). I expressed wanting to continue to develop community within my workplace’s online environment, and that perhaps I would identify new tools and practices to do so within this course.

Overall Course Experience

The following reflection on my experience in ETEC 524 looks at each the goals outlined in the initial Flight Path and details how they were addressed in ways both planned and unexpected.

New and Different Tools

In my initial overview of ETEC 524 I spied the Pot of Gold, which is a growing collection of tools, apps, articles, and other ed-tech-related resources for students to explore. Throughout the course there were various opportunities for students to share resources and their benefits (or pitfalls) based on direct experience. I did not have anything to share in the activity for sharing Assessment Elements in Part 1 of Module 2 – however this meant that the resources provided by my peers were especially useful for me. I was able to participate in the activity for sharing Instructional Communication Tools in Part 2 of Module 2, and benefited from reading about the tools that others were able share. Most importantly, ETEC 524 provide me the opportunity to experiment with the learning management system (LMS), Moodle for my design of a unit of learning. As my workplace is in the process of implementing Moodle as our new LMS, the opportunity to explore, create and design within the system was directly applicable to my future work.

Good Design in Learning Environments

The concept of ‘good design,’ both in terms of how learning is structured pedagogically, as well as the format and presentation of content was addressed repeatedly and in different ways throughout ETEC 524. There were key readings that I found particularly valuable in that they offered clear examples for putting good design into practice. Bai’s (2019) article details various pedagogical practices such as situated learning, a methodology that supports learners by “providing learning opportunities in authentic contexts and engaging students in authentic activities” (p. 612). Bai also outlines inquiry-based learning, “…a process of discovering new causal relations, with the learner formulating hypotheses and testing them by conducting experiments and/or making observations,” and explains, that with inquiry-based learning, “…the learners need to be self-directed and actively participate in the pursuit and discovery of new knowledge through exploration, observation and investigation” (p. 614). Bai’s article helped me to formulate the structure of my unit of learning – I aimed to incorporate situated learning, by designing activities that guided learners to create their own tools to use in their work, rather than to participate in learning activities that are not useful beyond the scope of learning. I employed inquiry-based learning, by incorporating research and personal discovery into the unit of learning, with the intent of developing the senses of autonomy and agency in learners.

Devers, Devers and Oke’s (2018) chapter on metacognition, and Tobin’s (2014) article regarding Universal Design for Learning (UDL) provide explicit direction on ways that instructional designers can create accessible and engaging content. Devers et al. (2018), suggest that “…learning improves when words and pictures are highlighted” (p. 12) and “learning increases when a human voice is used instead of a computer voice” (p.14). I know from personal experience how monotonous self-directed learning can be, so I incorporated these elements into my design to present complex information in a more manageable way. Tobin (2014) writes about breaking down learning into smaller, digestible pieces, explaining that “the result is a continuous whole that can be experienced a little bit at a time, repeated for reinforcement and study or even experienced from multiple starting points and self-selected paths through the materials” (p. 18). This perspective inspired me reconsider my standard approach of attempting to teach a whole topic in one 2–3-hour synchronous learning event, and instead break-down learning into several smaller activities over a longer period. I will be keeping both of these articles on hand to inform my instructional design practice moving forward.

Technologies or Practices to Advocate For

The experience I have gained working with Moodle in this course has allowed me to feel confident to advocate for obtaining design permissions within my workplace’s new LMS to be able to start building a learning environment specifically for my department, a role that is usually reserved for corporate-focused rather than divisional positions.

Unexpectedly, the most notable practice I identified as one to advocate for in my workplace, is the incorporation of regular assessment strategies. I often avoid assessment, as that type of critique usually comes from the learners’ direct supervisors, and my role is not supervisory. However, Anderson (2008) describes a formative assessment style, “that serves to motivate, inform, and provide feedback to both learners and teachers” (p. 49). Inspired by this perspective, I chose to incorporate an informal style of assessment in my unit of learning, designed to be self-reflective yet also allow for constructive feedback through collaborative discussion. Devers et al. (2018) assert that “self-explanation is another technique that encourages students to evaluate, connect, and self-correct their knowledge,” and that “a key component of self-explanation is combining new information with old information” (pp. 17-18). My goal is to lead and mentor staff so that they can develop their own unique methods of working, and be independent, agentic, and self-motivated employees, and I believe this style of formative assessment using self-explanation and group critique can help them to be aware of and take control of their personal development.

Building a Community

The notion of student-lead learning, or teacher as facilitator rather than as an authority is a prevalent theme in modern educational theory, yet I still struggle with falling back into the boring and expected role of lecturer. Burnett (2016) states that, “…knowledge is not fixed, but evolves as individuals improvise together – in practice – with what is available and what counts” (p. 568), and I want my personal pedagogy to reflect this sentiment; I want to create a learning environment (digitally, physically and conceptually) that celebrates learning through collaboration and social interaction, since as Dumont (2010) asserts, “we learn through social interaction” (p. 6). The practice of designing a unit of learning in this course has allowed me to design intentionally with a social-collaborative model of learning in mind. Throughout this course, I realized that to create a digital learning environment that supports collaboration through asynchronous activity is only one element to consider, but by also incorporating this perspective into the synchronous elements of a hybrid learning model allows for a cohesive environment of learning that supports an ongoing development of a community of practice.

Next Steps

         Throughout this reflection I have identified the new design practices and pedagogical perspectives I have incorporated within the unit of learning I created and provided potential future implications for each. In this course, I chose to design a unit of learning that was directly applicable to my work, and I have already begun adapting it for use in my workplace. Additionally, my experience in this course has motivated me to focus on developing the educational content in my workplace to reflect ‘good design’ aesthetically, technologically, and pedagogically. My immediate future goals are as follows:

• Use Moodle to design a whole course of learning that include lesson plans that incorporate a collaborative learning methodology and intentionally remove focus from the instructor-led lecture format to re-focus the learning on situated and inquiry-based activities;
• Incorporate formative assessment into lessons plans through self-explanation and informal and constructive group critique; and,
• Create accessible and interactive learning content that is cognisant of UDL and metacognition principles.

My initial impression that this course would provide practical guidance to support instructional design was correct, yet unexpectedly, this course has also allowed me to reconsider the overall design of learning in my workplace and has afforded me with the necessary tools to be able to initiate a much needed informed and meaningful re-design.

References

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 45-74). Edmonton AB: Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/books/120146/ebook/02_Anderson_2008-Theory_and_Practice_of_Online_Learning.pdf

Bai, H. (2019). Pedagogical practices of mobile learning in K-12 and higher education settings. TechTrends, 63, 611–620.

Burnett, C. (2016) Being together in classrooms at the interface of the physical and virtual: Implications for collaboration in on/off-screen sites. Learning, Media and Technology, 41(4), 566-589.

Devers, J. C., Devers, E. E., & Oke, L. D. (2018). Encouraging metacognition in digital learning environments. In D. Ifenthaler (Ed.), Digital workplace learning: Bridging formal and informal learning with digital technologies (pp. 9-22). Springer International Publishing AG. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-46215-8

Dumont, H., Istance, D., & Benavides, F. (Eds.). (2010). The nature of learning: Using research to Inspire practice. OECD Publications: Paris, France. http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/50300814.pdf

FNESC (2015). The First Peoples principles of learning. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/kindergarten-to-grade-12/teach/teaching-tools/aboriginal-education/principles_of_learning.pdf

Tobin, T. J. (2014). Increase online student retention with universal design for learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 15(3), 13-24.

I chose to focus this project on the topic of case management specifically because my workplace is in need of training on this topic. I then proceeded to make the mistake of sharing this information with my co-workers, which has only served to increase the amount of pressure I normally feel tenfold. I was required to complete research on the topic of case management in order to formulate a lesson to teach it.  Of course, I myself have several years of case management experience, but rather than write a lesson based on my own unique experience, I was more interested in understanding the greater themes. Much of the information I learned supported or expanded upon my own experience, but in my research, I identified two key points that have served to shift my perspective in a more radical way:

1. A large and complex caseload must be tackled (by tackle I mean reviewed, analyzed, and actioned) through different lenses filtered by time. Those times being days, weeks, months, and years. For example, one’s daily caseload management routine looks a lot different that one’s monthly routine, and defining these perspectives allows a large amount of complex work appear more manageable. (Ervin, 2008)
2. When staff collaborate with their supervisors on caseload management, through regular reviews and analysis of their caseload, or through regular mentorship, staff become more successful with managing their caseload. It is not as simple as the notion that if supervisors work collaboratively, rather than authoritatively with their staff, then their staff’s performance improves, though that is part of it. It is also that if the burden feels shared (or literally is shared) it becomes easier to overcome. (King, 2009)

My aim for this project was to take this new information and combine it with my previous experience to create a series of interactive diagrams that lay out the concept of case management in a clear, systematic, and digestible way, as this is not how the practice is viewed. Staff view case management as an activity separate from the rest of their tasks, rather than as the core structure that defines how their work is carried out. I often hear staff talking about the stress of the workload, and upon further discussion, it’s evident that they haven’t implemented a sufficient structure to manage their work. Rather than (like me) figuring it out after years of struggle, these interactive diagrams can serve as the impetus for staff to design their own personalized case management plan.

One final thought: Throughout the MET courses, I have often focused my projects on subjects more closely related with my undergrad, which is fine arts.  This is the first time that I chose a topic directly related to my work, and my current position, as well as the first time that people I work with are excited to see the final result. These factors have made the work more stressful, and difficult, because the content needs to be useful. Not hypothetically useful, but actually useful. Completing a project that might actually be used in the real world (though with some editing and adaptation) is a hard, but exciting thing!

References:

Ervin, N. E. (2008). Caseload management skills for improved efficiency. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 39(3), 127-132.

King, R. (2009). Caseload management, work-related stress and case manager self-efficacy among Victorian mental health case managers. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43(5), 453-459.

I began this process by drafting a syllabus for my course topic of estate administration and immediately became overwhelmed. As stated repeatedly throughout this assignment, estate administration is a complex and wide-ranging topic – it can cover most activities that people might get up to in their lives. The feeling of being overwhelmed signaled to me that a course outline is exactly something my workplace would benefit from. We do currently have a list of topics to train, but they aren’t organized in a way that aligns with the learning process, or the work the learners are engaging in concurrently. Creating the syllabus forced me to rearrange the training into modules, and to think about the resources available for each sub-topic, such as ‘guest speakers’. My current practice is to call on ‘guest speakers’ as I think to, but if this activity was built into the design of the course, I would know exactly when it would be the most effective time to introduce their knowledge. I am aware that these revelations seem obvious, but it can be hard to achieve this clarity with other demands pulling me in different directions. It’s rare to have the time to examine a process as a whole and consider how to improve its design.

Currently, my workplace is in the process of implementing Moodle to replace a former LMS that has very limited functionality. So, I have never had access to a proper LMS to organize my training, and using Moodle for the first time was almost a dream. (I state that with a full understanding that there are far more impressive LMSs than Moodle). I will also state that I spent several hours experimenting in frustration before getting the hang of Moodle. Recently, I have been working to build a sort of crude version of digital course components using Microsoft SharePoint (decidedly not an LMS) and I now see through experimenting with Moodle how much functionality I am missing out on (e.g., the glossary function, how easy it is to set up a forum, the ease of scheduling activities, the chat function). I’m excited to see what access will be provided to me when Moodle is fully implemented.

Finally, I want to reflect on my process of drafting learning objectives (LOs) for the course. In the discussion this week, I focused my LOs on the unit I will be creating for Part 2 of the assignment, only to realize that creating the LOs for the course as a whole is a requirement for Part 1. I began by editing my first unit LOs in response to the instructor’s feedback to help wrap my head around the concepts. After much deliberation, I attempted to draft LOs for the (very complex and wide-ranging) topic of estate administration and was able to narrow them down to 7. The process was enlightening – I am going to bring them to the current group of learning staff next week to hear their feedback. I wonder, do they realize these LOs are the focus of their training? Am I providing sufficient training to lead them towards these LOs?

The combination of the short timeframe, along with the difficulty of coordinating multiple people in at least four different time zones made this group assignment particularly challenging. Regardless, we were still able to pull together a thoughtful and comprehensive rubric reflective of our discussions and analysis of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in public and non-profit organization settings.

We began by sharing qualitative experiences of the various LMSs we have used, whether as learners, designers, or administrators in our respective workplaces. Some of us were able to pull related documentation used in the selection process of these systems for the group to review and build context. We had initial text-based discussions to analyze what worked, or what did not work from our own experiences, and made connections to the recent readings of the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2010) and the SECTIONS model (Bates, 2014). Through research we also explored two literature reviews, one that focused on LMSs in the workplace (Sabharwal, Chugh, Hossain & Wells, 2018) and another that identified barriers to e-learning within public administrations (Stoffregen, Pawlowski, & Pirkkalainen, 2015). This social and informal analysis process was spread out first in Canvas, then via Google Spaces and within our evolving Google Doc. Some of us were also able to meet on a Zoom call to discuss further and define a plan for completing the assignment.

Through the process of defining our scenario, we identified some key issues that were prevalent within many of our workplaces. The first being cost, as both public organizations and non-profits are so often working with limited and fluctuating budgets, which impacts the upfront funds available to purchase a software product, as well as the ongoing costs available to maintain staff that administer the LMS or design the e-learning housed within it, as well as the IT staff required to update and customize the software as required. Other key shared issues that informed our criteria were usability, analytical and reporting functionality to assist with assessment, privacy and security, and technological sustainability. Although cost was definitely a core criterion from each of our perspectives, it was interesting to hear the subtle differences in our experiences. For example, at Sarah W.’s place of work, smartphone compatibility is important because their LMS is highly utilized by external parties, and at Lisa’s workplace multiple device types are accessed and available to the users, whereas at my workplace, most staff have one assigned computer, with our smartphones largely only being used for telephone functionality. We decided to focus our scenario on an internal system designed at supporting staff training completed during work hours on their work computers.

Upon reflection of our rubric design, we could see that using a scale layout with values ranging from 1-4 points (from poor to excellent) allows the user of the rubric to clearly see where a particular LMS may be lacking, and also identifies clear opportunities for improvement either at the time of selection, or to set as goals in future software builds as funding may permit.

References:

Bates, T. (2014). Choosing and using media in education: The SECTIONS model. Teaching in the digital age. https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/9-pedagogical-differences-between-media/

Puentedura, R. (2010). The journey through the SAMR model. IPad Educators: Sharing Best Practice in the use of Mobile Technology. https://www.powerschool.com/blog/samr-model-a-practical-guide-for-k-12-classroom-technology-integration

Sabharwal, R., Chugh, R., Hossain, M. R., & Wells, M. (2018, December). Learning management systems in the workplace: A literature review. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 387-393). IEEE.

Stoffregen, J., Pawlowski, J. M., & Pirkkalainen, H. (2015). A Barrier Framework for open E-Learning in public administrations. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 674-684.

Who Am I?

I came to my education practice through my role as a Practice Leader working within the setting of a provincial government organization. My role is to provide training and mentorship to learning staff, design and build digital learning resources, and maintain an understanding and connection with current departmental practices to be able to edit and rework policies and procedures as required. My regular work week contains a combination of synchronous training sessions with a group of staff – usually via videoconference, one-on-one mentorship sessions, response to practice inquiries through multiple mediums (in person, email, direct message, phone, or videoconference), project work such as writing new procedures or creating digital content, and other tasks aimed at managing and directing the flow of incoming work. To summarize, my work is split between direct training and mentorship and work that results in creating better tools and documentation to support learning and daily practices.

In contrast to my work as a public servant, I have a background in fine arts, with an undergrad degree from Emily Carr University. I like the tactile aspect of making things with my hands, and I like working conceptually. My focus was in printmaking and book media. I draw on this same creativity in my role as an educator: I’m interested in trying new and experimental approaches. Learning should be fun! Learning should be well-designed, both from a usability perspective and an aesthetic perspective. When things look good and function well, people want to use them.

Goals

My goal for the MET program as a whole is to gain a deeper understand of teaching practices to inform my work and to build an enriched personal pedagogy, while also developing strategies to incorporate and make use of technology in an increasingly digital world. For several years now, I have been steadily working on building a web-based resource centre for my department using our internal portal system (that operates on Microsoft SharePoint). It is an iterative process, that is continually improved as our resources change, as technology advances, or as I learn new skills or develop my design knowledge. My goal in this course is to glean the knowledge and experience to push me forward with this project. Although my goals might evolve and expand throughout the course, currently I am thinking about the following:

• New & Different Tools

This is my ninth MET course, so I have engaged with various web-based content creation tools, yet there are still many I have not yet tried – and I am sure, many I am not aware of.  I noticed the Pot of gold section in Canvas and am interested in exploring the various apps, articles and other resources collected there.

• Design of Learning Environments

I mentioned above my interest in ‘good design’, and I want to learn the ideas and principles that inform a well-designed learning management system. What frameworks can be applied? What key concepts should be considered throughout the design process? I have a bit of an obsession with ‘good design’ – this could be anything from clothing and apparel, to architecture and industrial design, or interior or graphic design. I think some the key design elements that are evident in these topics (e.g., high functionality, intuitive, minimal yet meaningful aesthetics) are also evident in a well-designed learning environment.

• Are there technologies or practices I could advocate for within my work place?

Working within a government organization means that access to digital tools and resources is restricted. That being said, I question whether there are essential/beneficial technologies we do not currently employ that we could gain permission to use – currently not having access to tools or resources does not mean that we never should. Alternatively, are there tools or resources I could be using with the technology currently supported in my workplace that I simply am not aware of?

Building a Community

A particular principle within the First Peoples Principles of Learning struck me, “learning is holistic, reflexive, reflective, experiential, and relational (focused on connectedness, on reciprocal relationships, and a sense of place)” (FNESC, 2015). I wonder, can there be a centralized digital space (a learning management system, or a portal) that encompasses this principle? I want to create a digital learning space that acts as a hub of engagement, a place where individuals come to interact, gather information, and to feel a sense of community that they are an active part of. A space that I may initiate and build the shell for, but that the users will develop through their interaction with it.

 

References:

FNESC (2015). The First Peoples principles of learning. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/kindergarten-to-grade-12/teach/teaching-tools/aboriginal-education/principles_of_learning.pdf