Synthesis

Flight Path in Review

A general goal for my final few courses in MET is to practice, practice, practice the things I’ve learned so far. This is the time for me to become fluent in the theories that inspire and guide me. I recognized in my Flight Path that if “higher mental processes in humans develop through social interactions” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 396), the modules I usually create will lack this. My goal was to explore how communication and collaboration tools around the module content could support “contacts between students and faculty” and development of “reciprocity and cooperation among students” (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). In addition, I wanted to explore the use of multiple choice tests for meaningful assessments, and the use of reflective activities to enhance adult learners’ engagement and learning.

eLearning Toolkit

In sketching out my comments for a later section of this Synthesis, without realizing it I was thinking about how much I’ve expanded my own toolkit, and feel more equipped to do the job I was already doing. One of the things I love about e-learning design is that there are so many different components: instruction, design, technology, writing and the planning and management of these elements. The toolkit highlighted these, and provided a structured way to investigate them. It’s important that as educators we continue to explore tools, applications and approaches, try new things and model an open attitude to technology.

One area of the toolkit that was of particular interest for me was social software. This related to the course content I was developing in Moodle, but also to an area which I am particularly wary of personally. The social software section highlighted the key concerns I have about social media – content ownership and privacy. Reading through the privacy specifications for a few sites was illuminating. It never looks that good for the user, and I remain cautious about how I use these tools. On the other hand, I see the potential for sharing stories, being part of virtual networks, and developing an online community. As mentioned in the précis, developing a community around self-paced modules is one of the things I was most interested in this term, and social software is one way to facilitate student-student interactions, which Anderson says “can result in higher levels of cognitive, social and even teaching presence” (Rourke & Anderson, 2002, in Anderson, 2008, p. 57).

There needs to be a balance between these two perspectives, and as an educator I need to be careful to respect students’ privacy choices but also to provide support to understand the sometimes impenetrable language of privacy policies and terms of service. To model and truly understand how to use these tools effectively I need to venture more into this area more myself.

The synchronous communication tools are another option to create the community I’ve mentioned. The free chat tools available are so easy to use, and integrating them into the course shell adds to the sense of a cohesive course experience. I am considering how to make webinars or chat sessions a part of my courses to enable the “frequent student-faculty contact in and out of class [that] is a most important factor in student motivation and involvement” (Chickering & Gamson, 1987).

There were a couple of elements of the e-learning toolkit that I was simultaneously happy and discouraged to read. First was the web design component. Looking at some of the checklists for Web Pages that Suck I could feel my heart sinking. “But I think I do that!” I found myself thinking. While I love choosing images, playing with page designs, and fiddling in Photoshop, it is another one of the black hole activities. The quick checklists make it more manageable in some respects, but embarrassing to see certain habits I have exposed as “mistakes.”

The second element was accessibility. I was familiar with the concept of “508 compliance” but I have never been required to develop materials that adhere to any accessibility standards. Of all the characteristics on the list, using plain language is the only one I actually do. I’ve recently been considering what other accessibility considerations I need to make for our audience, and it is an overwhelming prospect in some respects.  Reading the scenarios provided by W3 in the Accessibility toolkit brought these issues to life for me, and I will be reviewing them again as I continue to develop materials at work.

New Technology Competencies

Using technology is like the proverbial bike riding – you get rusty when you haven’t done it for a while, but you never really forget. That said I learned far more about Moodle and HTML than I had anticipated. Having used Moodle before and administered a Chalkboard site (a Learning Management System) I hadn’t expected this course to push my LMS skills as much as it did.

HTML

I am now more comfortable looking at HTML, and making small changes in the code. While I still can’t necessarily troubleshoot complex problems this way, I am more comfortable with the HTML syntax. This makes tweaking things – or changing the uploaded files in Moodle – much easier. HTML is also more predictable than the WYSIWYG the average editor, so I see the advantage of being able to use it to troubleshoot small formatting or linking errors. That predictability can be quite comforting to work with.

Audio

The bad thing about creating my digital story from an interview I recorded over Skype using a free call recorder is that the sound quality was less than average. The good thing is that I was forced to research ways to improve it in Audacity. I also stumbled across another tool – Levelator – which will prove useful in future.

Presentation Tools

Another double-edged experience from the Digital Story assignment was my series of false starts. It would have been ideal to find the right tool right away, but as it turned out I needed to try two other tools first. The positive result from this is that I can now provide a comprehensive assessment of all three tools’ strengths and weaknesses, and with each new tool the learning curve became slightly less daunting. While it may only be my perception of the situation, my ability to quickly get comfortable with them improved.

In summary

I learned more than I expected to in terms of expanding my skill with some of the tools with which I was already familiar. We were also exposed to so many new tools that I feel I have a much broader understanding of the free tools available, and would be better able to find creative solutions or create interesting multimedia learning objects.

Direction for the Future

Every course I take shifts my thinking slightly, but I think this course has been the catalyst for a greater shift. I have for a while recognized the challenges of creating entirely independent modules that embody constructivist principles, and for that reason the course I’ve developed in this program strays from that model. More and more I recognize the importance of dialogue and social presence in learning, and I believe more strongly in the need for structures that support student collaboration and conversation. I’ve started to think about how to organize courses so they are self-directed but still completed with a cohort and within an online community. In my Moodle course reflection I noted that I’ve started to lean more towards a hybrid of independent and collaborative, and am thinking about how this model can be applied in my workplace.

In addition, I am thinking about how to include synchronous communication as part of the learning community that supports specific courses or modules. A colleague and I have started planning how we can use synchronous webinars to support and encourage use of the asynchronous discussion forums, and to support people who are trying e-learning for the first time.

The other topic I highlighted in my Flight Path was assessment. My question was, “What does meaningful assessment look like in this environment?” It was useful to explore the assessment features of Moodle, particularly the option to give detailed feedback that directs learners to supplementary resources or provides formative feedback, because this kind of assessment is the most suitable for the self-paced courses I develop. In my Moodle course I included “diagnostic” assessment (Jenkins, 2004, p. 69), and am now looking at building this into materials I am developing at work. Using pre-assessments to help learners highlight the areas to focus on seems to fit naturally into my existing way of organizing content, but it is not something I’m currently doing.

In addition, because the materials I develop are not part of an accredited or graded course I have largely ignored both formative and summative assessments. Jenkins says that, “providing feedback to students is a valuable part of the learning process and should be ongoing, frequent and comprehensive” (2004, p. 68). The set of courses I am currently developing will include both, as well as a number of opportunities for learners to reflect on the content.

Next Steps

Boyes, Dowie and Rumzan (2005) write that “instructional designers, technical specialists, and professional educators sometimes have difficulty communicating effectively about the multitude of factors that influence the design of educational resources” (n.p.). This has been a challenge for me in the past, and I see Bates and Poole’s SECTIONS framework as a way to structure this conversation with my colleagues.

I also plan to implement SECTIONS on a small scale, with my tiny team of one, to reassess some of the technologies I am already using. I am revaluating to ensure my choices are driven primarily by pedagogical criteria, but which are also feasible given my limited resources and existing systems. It is important to keep adding to that toolkit, and to continue to look for free tools that can support the development and delivery, but also to adopt a systematic and structured approach to determining which tools to use. My experience with the Digital Story showed me that sometimes simple is better. Animations and a lot of moving parts do support certain educational outcomes, but they’re not always necessary. My desire to create materials that are engaging and interactive has led me to create materials that are sometimes unnecessarily complicated. It’s time to revisit the basics.

To stay engaged with learning about new tools and approaches after this course and the MET program are finished, requires more effort on my part. The time has come for me to join some online communities outside of MET. Although I have two courses to go, I have already started thinking about how to stay engaged, and not become complacent with my current approach and current tools.

Conclusion

In many ways my Flight Path still defines the areas I’m most interested to investigate and explore further. This course has helped me to both expand my understanding of course development and technology, and refine my approach for future work.

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).

Boyes, J., Dowie, S.  & Rumzan, I. (2005). Using the SECTIONS Framework to Evaluate Flash Media. Innovate 2(1). Retrieved from: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=55

Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z.F. (1987).  Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education.  American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7. Retrieved from: http://www.aahea.org/bulletins/articles/sevenprinciples1987.htm

Driscoll, M.P. (2005). Psycochology of Learning for Instruction. Toronto, ON: Pearson.

Jenkins, M. (2004). Unfulfilled Promise: formative assessment using computer-aided assessment. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 67-80.