How Online Educators Benefitted by Walking-the-Talk with Collaborative Instructional Design

Online Learning Insights

This post examines how instructors teaching online can develop pedagogical and instructional skills by collaborating, communicating and building knowledge online with peers using technological tools and applications.

MP900444382[1]A paper published recently in the Journal of Online Teaching and Learning (JOLT) highlights (perhaps unknowingly) one of the most effective methods for teaching faculty and instructors how to become skilled in online pedagogy and instruction—walking-the-talk. In the paper instructors did exactly what the students need to do to learn effectively and deeply online, by collaborating, contributing knowledge, sharing and creating an artifact [in this case two online courses] virtually. What’s significant is that collaboration and learning occurred via technological applications, i.e. Skype, Google Docs, Dropbox, discussion forums, and Voicethread. The point is that the technology wasn’t the focus, but that robust, meaningful and productive learning occurred despite the technology. When used effectively technology, as apparent in this study, becomes invisible—transparent. Communicating…

View original post 632 more words

Standard

Future of Online Learning and Final Thoughts

I had a great opportunity to enroll in the course, Designing and Developing Online Distance Learning at the University of Minnesota, taught/facilitated by Angel Pazurk, this fall 2013 semester, and couldn’t be more excited to continue pursuing my interest in online learning. As the semester comes to a close, I wanted to capture some final thoughts on my learning experiences in this online course. Below are three takeaways the capture those final thoughts. 

1. Student-centered learning is integral to the future of education. As educators, we must continue to focus everything on the student, and how he/she learns, and adjust the design and development of the course, module, or system, to fit each individual student.

2. Technology will continue to evolve very quickly and change education. There are still numerous arguments for and against the integration of technology into learning environments, even today, when technology for most of us (but certainly not all of us) is a HUGE part of our lives. It’s important that researchers, practitioners, and educators continue to use technology that enhances the entire learning process and allows students to EXPERIENCE learning (per Stephen Brookfield [2006]) better. 

3. Online learning and the future of education. The future of education is moving more and more towards more online learning opportunities, BUT, there are still key components of face to face (f2f) interactions that provide learners an opportunity to connect and learn from each other. As people continue to build online environments and courses, they must be creative and thoughtful in how to create those f2f experiences online.

There are many more interesting things I gained from my experiences with this online course, and I hope to take everything I learned and apply them to my role in the development of customized training opportunities for practitioners in the Minnesota, and to my future opportunities in education and online learning.  

Standard

Quality Matters (QM) and Online Learning

As I think more in-depth about the Quality MattersTM Rubric Standards 2011-2013 Edition as it relates to my online learning environment, I feel knowledge is very much constructed between individuals. In my online learning environment, my goal is to provide information for my learners (through authentic contexts), but allow them the opportunity build and/or construct the knowledge from their previous experiences. I want my learners to become creative and innovative in how they think and how they can best utilize the information given to them. The QM rubric only standardizes how we “should” create online environments, and fails to integrate different approaches, such as constructivism or constructionism, into the standard. So, to answer the question, does my epistemological orientation align with the QM standards, no, it does not. The QM rubric needs some work. 🙂

As for my practical considerations, I will use the QM standards as an assessment tool to review my online course. But, as many in the class would agree, it’s not a rulebook and there are so many other elements of online learning not included in the QM standards that need to be addressed. 

 

Standard

AECT Conference — Proceedings Review

For this weeks blog post, I’d like to reflect on my experiences in contacting several professionals and presenters from the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) 2013 International Conference. The assignment asked us to contact two individuals that presented at the conference and request their presentation proceedings. I contacted Prof. Brad Hokanson, from the University of Minnesota, and Jenny Wakefield and Scott Warren from the University of North Texas. Brad was very responsive to my original request. It took a few days to receive a response from Jenny. She was a great source of information, though, and was receptive to me after I told her I was pursuing my M.Ed. degree at the University of Minnesota. I also think Brad was more receptive to me after he learned about my educational goals. I plan to meet with Brad in a few weeks to further discuss his work (I’ll discuss more below). 

With my interest in massive open online courses (MOOCs), I went ahead and contacted Prof. Brad Hokanson, PhD, University of Minnesota, on his presentation, “SMOOCH: The development of an internally targeted massive online course in creativity.” The project concept includes developing an online MOOC-like course (Semi-MOOC, hence the “S”) for incoming freshman to learn about creativity and problem-solving. Prof. Hokanson proposes about 1000 incoming freshman will enroll in the course, with the first cohort moving through next summer, 2014.  If the course proves to be successful, the number of incoming freshman that enroll, could potentially increase significantly. The course will also not be a “traditional” lecture style course; it will be an active learning environment with a focus on problem-solving that requires students to be engaged actively online. Creativity seems like a difficult concept to teach online; but Hokanson notes the course will be structured with a series of challenges and problems to be solved, allowing creativity to be developed through the online interactions and collaborations. Students will also be peer reviewed and asked to participate in online discussions with other learners.

In my review of the proceedings, this course seems to align well with the online learning strategies and goals we’ve learned in CI5325. It will be interesting to see the design of the course online and how well it meets the needs of the learners. I plan to meet with Prof. Hokanson in the near future to discuss this course and his ideas to build a stronger undergraduate student experience and “teach” them to become more creative. 

I also received a proceedings paper from Jenny Wakefield and Scott Warren from the University of North Texas on their work, “Learning and Teaching as Communicative Actions: Applications of the Theory to Mobile Learning.” The goal of their paper was to introduce learning and teaching as communicative actions theory as one theoretical support for using mobile devices and applications to support learning. Their theory of learning focuses on the communication affordances of mobile learning, and provides learners with meaningful, real world contexts. Learning and teaching as communicative actions theory (LTCA) is one such avenue that can be used to support the notion that mobile learning is a communication affordance to us. LTCA can be used as a model to see how we learn from mobile devices and may be the future “go to” theory in mobile learning. The paper was very interesting to read especially with my personal interest in mobile learning. Jenny also recommended a book for me, Handbook of Mobile Education, 2013. The book includes their paper, which I discussed above. This book provides a huge source of research and information related to the future of mobile technologies. 

Overall, my communications with the presenters from AECT was very comfortable and well worth the couple of minutes I spent writing my emails. I plan to reach out to additional presenters from the conference in the future to learn more about some specific topics of interest to me. 

 

 

Standard

Tapping into Introverted Processing in Active Learning

TILT

Are our expectations of students in the classroom catered toward extroverted students?  For example: Do we assume that a talking student is a participating student while the quiet one is disengaged?  Do we presume that active learning means overtly, even physically doing some activity we can, therefore, visually assess to say learning is happening?

Do introverted students feel marginalized due to being compared to these sorts of “Extrovert Ideals” and assumptions about what sorts of behaviors demonstrate learning at work? 

In their presentation at the Fall13 Academy of Distinguished Teachers Conference, Meaghan Stein and Liza Novack  discussed these and other questions about our expectations for student participation.  Their practical tips on how to incorporate multiple pathways for students to participate include:  

  • prompting quiet “think time”  before discussions
  • providing optional routes for sharing comments during a discussion (speaking for a small group, writing responses, then students commenting on the several…

View original post 81 more words

Standard

Building Trust in Online Learning Environments

Trust is a HUGE component in online learning environments.  Nancy Ortner (2010) say it all so well; collaborative work requires 90% people and 10% technology. As we’ve learned in this course, technology is a huge component to effective online learning environments, but if there is any lack of trust between the course instructors and his/her students, technology can’t help save the course from crashing. As Ortner, 2010 notes, trust is considered the “superglue” in holding an online learning environment together. Ortner, 2010 notes several trust strategies developed by Coopola (2005) that are integral to building an online learning environment and community. Of those mentioned, I am particularly interested in establishing early communication, developing a positive social atmosphere, reinforcing predictable patterns of communication and actions, and involving team members in tasks in my online course. I believe following these strategies will help your students build not only trust with you as an instructor, but trust with other students in the course. Trust is only built AFTER some learning and interaction has taken place. As we build our online learning environments, it’s important to think about to build interaction into the course so students find opportunities to connect with each other and the instructor. Because, then, trust will be built. 

It’s interesting to note that creating predictable patterns of communication and actions increased engagement and collaboration within a course. Students need patterns and consistency, as we learned from Spiegel’s article a few weeks ago, to effectively engage within an online learning environment. Conrad discussed the importance of creating good content that allows for good interaction and that the instructor presence is not the most important factor for engagement.

So, as I continue to build my final module and online learning environment for this course, I need to continue to remind myself to build assets into my course that will help build trust not only between my students and myself, but among the students themselves. 

Standard

MOOCs as Non-Disruptors: So, Where Do we go From Here?

Online Learning Insights

I like to call this the year of disruption,” says Anant Agarwal, president of edX, “and the year is not over yet.” New York Times (November 2, 2012)

Chaos Ahead Traffic SignMassive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are not disrupting traditional higher education as predicted by Anant Agarwal, president of edX almost one year ago. To date, MOOCs are not bubble-busters, tuition-busters, or even ‘democratizers’ of higher education. Granted MOOCs do show great promise for continuing education and professional development for working adults, but the value of MOOCs in undergraduate education is questionable. Moreover, the lack of data supporting positive learning outcomes with the MOOC format is for the most part, nonexistent. Given that considerable time, money, and energy have preoccupied institutional resources as applied to MOOCs, now is as good as time as any to re-focus and leverage what we do know about MOOCs gleaned from faculty and instructor experiences.

View original post 842 more words

Standard