Having had limited experience with the use of learning management systems, and having previously had no experience to speak of in designing an online course, I knew this course would be challenging from the start. My inexperience undoubtedly came out in my Flightpath video, in which I did not define any specific learning objectives, rather, my goal was to get a holistic view on learning management systems and their potential to facilitate meaningful learning online.
Almost 12 weeks removed from that first post, I can safely say that I have grown in my knowledge of learning management systems, and have found a new appreciation for instructional design, as well as theoretical frameworks that inform the pedagogical strategies employed in online learning.
In evaluating this course overall, I would say that though the design and integration of course material did well to inform my thinking around online learning, the practical application of the knowledge into practice was rough to say the least. I found the learning curve to be steep, so much so that it took numerous hours for me to figure out what the differences were between a content folder, module and page. My incompetence in this area clearly pokes holes in Prensky’s (2001) ‘digital native’ theory, as my grandmother could have had an easier time with this assignment, and she is 50+ years my senior.
That being said, there were a number of positives that I drew from the course. The use of ePortfolios was a tool that was well employed for the purposes of displaying and reflecting on what we have learned. Perhaps an amendment for the course the next time it is run is to have peers respond to one another’s reflections. I understand that making components compulsory (participation marks for example) may lead to superficial posting, but I felt that the metacognitive process would have been aided with input from others. In a traditional teaching environment, feedback is largely the responsibility of the instructor, however in my experience thus far in the MET, that is seldom the case. This critique is not specific to this course, however it is just a general observation I have made.
Overall, this course has challenged me to think strategically as an instructional designer, and pushed me out of my comfort zone in numerous ways. Amongst the many challenges I faced was regarding the issue of assessment, and the readings, particularly the Bates & Poole (2003) reading made clear to my that assessments need to address and reinforce the skills that are being sought after. This serves as an excellent reminder to me, and will undoubtedly shape my teaching practice moving forward.
One element that I enjoyed, but perhaps could have seen more of was the use of case studies. This situated learning approach (Wilson & Meyer, 2000) allowed students to participate in real-world situations, and furthered honed our analytical and critical thinking skills. I personally would have liked to have seen more of these integrated in meaningful ways, however I realize the major assessment was one of creating modules on our LMS platforms, and this last activity provided to be the epitome of situated learning, as it provided me with an opportunity to construct a course from scratch. Research has shown that interacting with technology in meaningful was can increase motivation and heighten problem-solving skills (Tatar & Robinson, 2012), and certainly found that to be the case through this course.
Moving forward I am left asking myself, to what extent will K-12 online education differ from that of adult learning and higher education? This was a question that I pondered as I worked through my content module, and it is a question that I am still left asking myself. Of this I am certain however, and that is that a constructivist approach is needed, and since constructivism is a “theory of knowing” (Hsu & Wang, 2012), in which students are not empty vessels to be filled (Tippins, Tobin & Nichols, 1995), having interactive collaborative projects are necessary, no matter what the age group.
References:
Bates, A.W. and Poole, G. (2003) Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. New York: Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated. 77.
Hsu, K.C. and Wang, J.R. (2012). An elementary school teacher’s reflection on implementing constructivist instruction in science classroom. US-China. Education Review B (1), 63-67.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Tatar, D., & Robinson, M. (2003). Use of the digital camera to increase student interest and learning in high school biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(2), 89-95.
Tippins, D., Tobin, K., and Nichols, S. (1995). A Constructivist approach to change in elementary science teaching and learning. Research in Science Education. 25 (2) 135-149.
Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 57-88). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum.