Reading16 Theme 7: Focus on the online teacher

Reading 16. Second reading on Theme 7: Focus on the Online teacher.

McNaught, C. (2003) Supporting the global e-teacher. International Journal of Training and Development 7:4

link: to source through Massey Library

Carmel McNaught is an Australian who at the time of writing worked in Hong Kong and taught online in a New Zealand University.

The paper addressed the role of academic staff development in preparing university teachers to work effectively within the changing boundaries of their institutions.

There is an expectation that both staff and students will operate comfortably within an electronic environment, but changing educational practices and styles can produce negative reactions and negativity needs to be acknowledged and managed effectively by a supportive environment. The institution must offer staff opportunities to manage their own level of comfort. There needs to be a congruence of policy, culture and support if e-learning is to be successful.

Globalisation means that the online instructor in higher education is confronted by various perspectives on knowledge that need to be negotiated together with the increasing student diversity and increasing range of tools and strategies for design

Innovation and change requires adequate support and time must be made available to build staff confidence and motivation. McNaught recommended 3 strategies to provide flexible, appropriate and adaptable support for e-teachers:

1. focus on supporting individual teachers in their own workplace setting

2. focus on supporting good curriculum and educational design

3. focus on policy

McNaught sums up with a list of 7 principles for staff development for the global e-teacher:

• Have meaningful, inclusive conversations about change
• Leaders must show commitment to academic principles
• Global university partnerships must be negotiated
• Departmental support projects rather than institution-wide should be established
• Realistic expectations of staff and workload
• Support needs to be on-going and multi-faceted
• Establish & maintain teachers’ motivation for e-teaching

DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS

In searching for an article on this theme I was interested to discover that there appeared to be so much about the learning process and the student and comparatively little specifically about the instructor. In face-to-face teaching, teachers are continuously communicating to each other about teaching methods, students and related issues. I would think that by contrast, the online teacher could easily become socially isolated. Do the many edublogs, discussion boards and wikis compensate the total online teacher? In a large institution like a university, should online instructors also be allocated face-to-face classes to provide a variety of experience - would that postpone or accelerate burnout?

reading 15 Theme 7:A Focus on the Teacher

Reading 15: First reading on Theme 7: A Focus on the teacher

Sheridan, R. (2006). Reducing the Online Instructor's Workload. Educause Quarterly. 29. (3). Downloaded on 29 August 2008 from http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/ReducingtheOnlineInstruct/39983

As a face-to-face teacher, I have found maintaining good online communication and "marking" essays online to be more time-consuming than the same activities in face-to-face situations, so the title of this particular article caught my eye.

Sheridan writes from practical experience, as he is experienced in both hybrid and full online courses. As introduction, he deals with the pros and cons of online teaching - the advantages of self-paced, flexible, preferences for written vs spoken communication and geographical freedom as opposed to the disadvantages for both student and teacher of mastering a technological learning curve, lack of direct contact or support personnel, difficulty of recognising and understanding drop-outs, internet connection issues and on-screen reading.

His advice for managing time includes several practical pointers:

• Automate parts of the course – use online development tools for frequently asked questions, self-correcting quizzes, etc
• Minimise e-mail questions by creating a “what’s new” section to get students to focus on new assignments or learning materials without reviewing the whole course
• Design courses in dreamweaver or another HTML program that allows updating of several pages with one correction
• Organise a support group (e.g. students) to help support when there are technical problems
• Design courses with an awareness of assessment workload. Avoid instructor burnout by reducing workload through peer, computer or self-assessment options or group assignments.
• Attempt to have administrative staff deal with certain aspects of the course and encourage experienced students to support others.
• Communicate early on how best to use the course; encourage continuous feedback to be responsive to needs.

He concludes with the reminder that the students’ satisfaction with the online experience and whether they learnt the required material determines the success.

Question and discussion:

This paper offers little new after my readings on design. However a problem was highlighted in a caption to an illustration in the PDF version of the article – “High-enrollment courses especially may need to use fewer personalized grading assignments or high-tech features”. Bearing in mind that personalised grading offers good feedback, does this not compromise the learning? Secondly, should the “high-tech features” not be included only for the purposes of enhancing learning or easing things for the instructor? If they do not serve at least one of these, they would be no loss…but if they serve the purpose, their absence could lower the quality of the course and damage the instructor’s sense of efficacy in teaching.

Reading 14 Theme 6

READING 14: THEME 6: ASSESSMENT ONLINE

Grayton, J.& McEwan, B. (2007) Effective Online Instructional and Assessment Strategies. American Journal of Distance Education, 21 (3) 117-132. Downloaded on 22 August 2008
by Swets

Assessment is not simply to answer accountability; the main purposes include monitoring of learning, improving academic programs and enhancing teaching and learning.

The purpose of this study was to better understand the instructional and assessment strategies that are most effective in online learning environments. The investigation involved an online questionnaire survey of all faculty teaching online and students enrolled in those courses at two southern state universities during the fall semester of 2004.

In terms of learning strategies, the findings suggested the need for open communication, accommodation of a variety of instructional methods and student-teacher and student-student interactions.

Effective online assessment include a wide variety of regular, clearly explained assignments. Feedback must be meaningful, timely and supported by well-designed rubric where possible. E-mail messages, chatroom conversations and discussion board postings also provide the instructor with feedback regarding the students’ interpretation of the assessments.

Effective assessment techniques should include variety, e.g. projects, portfolios, self-assessments, peer evaluations, weekly assignments with immediate feedback, rubrics, timed tests and quizzes and asynchronous discussions. The findings supported the importance of continuous assessment because it allows the instructors to become familiar with students’ work and to ensure student understanding. However Wilson (2004) cautioned that frequency does not automatically lead to effectiveness. Careful, systematic planning and meaningful feedback are crucial.

DISCUSSION
One reason I selected this article was for its recency of publication. This proved rather disappointing however because the investigation was in fact completed 4 years ago. Perhaps it is together with the fact that I am in the latter stages of this paper that I feel that this paper offers nothing new.

The article confirmed the need for effective interpersonal interactions in both learning and assessment activities.
What is again emphasised in this paper is the need for clarity and planning in the design of assessments, coupled with the short turn-around of feedback.

Reading 13 Theme Six Assessment Online

Reading 13 Theme Six Assessment Online

Mason, R., Pegler, C.& Weller, M. E-portfolios: an assessment tool for online courses. British Journal of Educational Technology. 35 (6) 717-727. Downloaded on 1 August 2008 from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/cgi-bin/fulltext/118747751/HTMLSTART

The article refers to the different uses of e-portfolios in an educational context depending on purpose – developmental, presentation or assessment – and the characteristics of collection, selection, reflection, projection and presentation but its relevance to this theme lies in its discussion of the e-portfolio used with learning objects for end-of-course assessments (ECA). This paper presents data`and results of an application of e-potfolios as the final assessment of a course (LCE or Learning in the Connected Economy) designed in learning objects. The authors demonstrate the similarity of e-portfolios and a collection of learning objects – both assemble discrete pieces of electronically available material that can be manipulated, stored and re-versioned to suit different audiences. Both involve the same technology and components of re-use and selectivity. The LCE course is written entirely in learning objects. Each learning object was designed as a holistic learning experience with internal integrity as a unit of study.

The authors exploit e-portfolios for their potential use as an authentic student outcomes assessment for distance learning courses - students are able to share their ideas and feedback. In this case, the work-in-progress webfolios were accessible to each other through the Web during the course. They thus provided a new perspective on student evaluation where students learned to experience the “synergy of collaborative learning rather than the competitiveness experienced during testing or examinations” (p.718). The e-portfolio substituted the traditional essay and counted for 50% of the total mark. This course design offered an integrated learning experience and enabled students to work through a range of activities.

The learning objects consisted of three elements:
• Topic overview highlighting problems, ideas, issues
• Links to further resources, websites or journal activities for further reading
• One or two activities, some individual others collaborative

Students were offered a choice from 55 learning objects. This amount of choice demanded required a relatively sophisticated, self-directed and confident learner to really benefit from the strategy.

Evidence showed that this was a demanding form of assessment but that the e-portfolio was a fitting assessment model as it allowed for discrete pieces of work to be brought together meaningfully. It was also an independence-building tool that developed learning-to-learn skills. One student observed that the e-portfolio was “a big step to affirming what we had learned”. It brought together work that had been learned during the course and forced reflection on the learning objectives.

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
1. According to the article, all participants achieved "at least a pass" which implies that there were various levels of passing. How does one fairly grade student efforts when there is a heavy emphasis on student choice as a starting point?
2. The great advantage of the e-portfolio is that it offers the ability the serve not only as showcase for assessment but as a source of reflection. With traditional paper essays, they become almost "dead" after submission. The e-portfolio however, remains a dynamic facility, thuis giving it on-going relevance.

Reading 12 Theme 5

Reading 12
Second reading on Theme 5 : Online Communication

Mazzolini, M & Maddison, S. (2004).When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums. Computers & Education 49 (2007) 193-213. Downloaded on 1 August 2008 from Science Direct

Background: This article is a report on research on 40,000 postings to nearly 400 discussion forums. It was a follow-up to earlier (and smaller) research as published: Mazzolini, M & Maddison, S. (2002) Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education 40 (2003) 237-253.

Context: asynchronous forums used for tutorial-type teaching purposes and form part of the assessment mix in Swinburne Astronomy Online (fully online postgraduate courses at Swinburne University of Technology, Australia.)

The authors investigated how instructor participation rates, the timing of instructor postings and the nature of their postings relate to student participation and perception.

The central issues are highlighted by citing Paloff & Pratt (2001) that “the instructor needs to maintain a balance between too little and too much participation”. The instructor should determine the appropriate time to jump in, make a comment, ask another question, or redirect the discussion. Too much participation by the instructor can reduce the amount of interaction among the students and create an unnecessary degree of reliance on the teacher.

It was found that the volume of student and instructor postings in forums did not necessarily indicate how well the forums were going.

• on average, instructors who played a prominent part in forum discussions or who were active in making significant numbers of initial postings did not appear to stimulate more discussion, and may possibly have even limited the amount of discussion (with the more advanced students) and the lengths of discussion threads (with all students). The more instructors posted, the less frequently students posted and the shorter were the discussion threads. Instructors who attempted to increase the amount of discussion in forums by initiating new postings did not succeed. This differed from instructors’ perceptions - most felt that higher frequency of instructor postings either did not affect or increased the \level of student discussion.
• Even if, in the process, their own contributions to the discussions tend to decrease, students perceived instructors who posted often as enthusiastic and displaying greater expertise
• No correlation with whether the bulk of instructors’ postings are made during or at the end of the discussion period. The rearchers speculate that students will still wait to hear what an instructor has to say at the end rather than continuing to debate an issue at length, once they have determined an instructor’s practice of “wrapping up” at the end of a forum.
• Student responses suggest a preference for discussions with initial and follow-up questions, no unanswered questions at the end and a statement of the instructor’s own opinion.

QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION & REFLECTION

This research suggested a reliance on the instructor’s final words in a discussion. I would suggest that two other factors could influence this – the nature of the subject material (this issue is also raised by Wallace (2003) and the age or level of expertise of the student. Perhaps even a gender variance could be considered. Further to this - would it be preferable to resolve an issue entirely or to leave a few threads hanging for students own reflection and resolution?
This research did not investigate the impact of student-student dialogue as opposed to student-instructor dialogue in the active learning process. While the research seems to confirm Moore’s theory of transactional distance (Wallace, 2003, p. 244), Jon Dron’s theory of transactional control (Dron 2006, 2007) possibly explains the tendency for students to rely on the ‘wrapping-up” process by the instructor – whereby the less knowledgeable learner chooses to delegate control to the knowledgeable instructor. It seems to me that the theories of transactional distance and transactional control working together together could account for the findings in this research.

References:
Thanks to Leah Dewijze for the class discussion reference to idolresources.com which led me to the following articles.

Dron, J. (2006). Social software and the emergence of Control. downloaded on 2 August 2008 from http://www.cmis.brighton.ac.uk/staff/jd 29/papers/icalt 2006.doc

Moore, M. Theory of transactional distance. Keegan, D, ed. Theoretical Principles of Distance education (1997), Routledge, pp.22-38. downloaded on 2 August 2008 from http://www.tamu.edu

And from the E-learning course booklet:
Dron, J. (2007). From transactional distance to transactional control. In Control and constraint in e-learning. Choosing when to choose. pp. 18 - 39. Hershey, PA: Idea group.

Wallace, R.M. (2003). Online learning in higher education: a review of research on interactions among teachers and students (Online version). Education, Communication & Information, 3(2), 241-280.

Reading 11 Theme 5

Reading 11
First reading on Theme 5 : Online Communication

Salmon, G. (2000) . A model for CMC in education and training. In E-moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online (pp22-37). London: Kogan Page


Background:
In searching for sources for an assignment I found Salmon’s work online and then her name cropped up in our class discussion, so I was prompted to a closer reading of this book borrowed a few weeks back. As a novice to all things online, the term “e-moderating’ held an elusive meaning for me. Salmon defines it and deals with it very practically in this book. I have the third reprint of the first edition and she has since updated it. (See http://www.atimod.com/e-moderating/intro.shtml). The chapter I am going to discuss is relevant to our theme of online communication and reflects back to our previous theme of design.

Chapter 2: A model for CMC in Education and Training
Salmon grounded her model for Computer Mediated Conferencing (CMC) in research carried out in the Open University of the United Kingdom. The consolidated five-stage model built from this research may also be viewed at http://www.atimod.com/e-moderating/5stage.shtml. The benefit for using the model to design a course with CMC is that knowing how participants are likely to exploit the system at each stage avoids pitfalls. All students progress through these stages with varying responses to how much time is spent at each stage. Each stage suggests student characteristics and/or needs and e-moderator responsibilities.

STAGE 1: Access and motivation
• setting things up, technical issues, e-moderator initiates contact to motivate and clarify course

STAGE 2 Online socialisation
• Students recognise the need to identify with each other, to develop a sense of direction online and they need some guide to judgement and behaviour; Evidence shows that individuals struggle to find their sense of time and place in the online environment. They recognise the need to identify with each other, to develop a sense of direction online and they need some guide to judgement and behaviour; Lurking may occur (she suggests the nicer term of “browsing”) but it is natural at this stage and a normal part of socialisation.
• E-moderators must facilitate interaction across cultural, social and learning divides; they need to tolerate chat conferences and online socialising that increases “belongingness”. Moderators must create an atmosphere where the participants feel respected and able to gain respect for their views. CMC offers affordance of online socialising but does not create social interaction.


STAGE 3: information exchange,
• Participants learning requires interaction with course content and interaction with people, namely the moderator and other participants.
• Moderators facilitate tasks and conferencing that focuses on discovering or exploring known (to them) answers, or on aspects of problems or issues.
• Potential student strategies for dealing with overload start appearing e.g. not read all; removal from conferencing; read all but rarely respond (they may disappear)
• Learning how to exchange information in conferences is essential before students move on to full-scale interaction in stage four. At this stage, motivation and enjoyment come from personal and experiential communication.

STAGE 4: knowledge construction,
• More exposed, participative interactions; more active learning; widening of viewpoints and appreciating differing perspectives. Grasp on theories and concepts is enhanced through debate and examples.
• The focus is on the process – creative cognitive process of offering up ideas, having them criticised or expanded on, reshaped or abandoned in light of peer discussion.
• Issues best dealt with at this stage are those that have no right answers, or ones students need to make sense of, or a series of ideas or challenges. Issues are likely to be strategic, problem-or practice-based.
• E-moderator must build & sustain groups, weave discussion, summarize occasionally, stimulate fresh direction.
• Flattening of hierachical communication structure between e-moderators and participants

STAGE 5: development .
• Participants become responsible for own learning through computer-mediated opportunities and need little support beyond that already available.

Discussions & Questions
Besides the readability of this book, I found the model strangely comforting. I tended to personalise it as I read and found that my own personal experience with online learning closely follows the procedure /sequence described. Would it be useful for e-moderators to share with students new to online courses what can be expected in the various stages? For example, after the term “lurking” was used in our course, I felt guilty about my participation level and pressured into saying something just for the sake of not being a lurker. Similarly, when browsing, how does one acknowledge that browsing? While active participants would want input from peers, could it not be equally annoying to have posts that did not really add anything?
In one of her findings, Salmon notes that a very able face-to-face facilitator online continued to assert authority to the detriment of knowledge construction online. She concludes that face-to-face skills are insufficient in themselves to ensure successful interactive conferences. (I find this interesting as I feel that this could in fact apply to me!) Although Salmon does include chapters on the competencies and training of e-moderators there seem no clear teaching on how to develop these skills.

Reading 10 (Theme 4)

Reading 10
third reading on Theme 4 : Development and design of courses

Karagiorgi, Y. & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 17-27

Accessed via Massey Library


Browsing the journals, this article caught my eye as there has been some renewed discussion on the constuctivist issues in our online discussions. Published three years ago, this is no revolutionary article, but it does offer an organised response to radical constructivists.This paper offers an overview of constructivist theory, discusses its underlying principles (active, collaborative and authentic learning) and distinguishes between radical and non-radical constructivism. It advocates the latter within a pragmatic approach to design.

The challenges for instructional design:
• If each learner is responsible for knowledge construction, then designers cannot determine and ensure a common set of outcomes for learning; the learners’ autonomy makes it hard to predict how learners will learn or how to plan instructional activities.
• Evaluation – when learning outcomes are individually constructed, it is difficult to set standards to assess the meaningfulness of the learning.
• Learner control – possible construction of “wrong” knowledge; not all learners benefit from control over their own learning

Reasons for these problems stem from the fact that constructivism is a learning theory and not a learning strategy nor a theory of teaching. Thus a dialogue between learning theorists and instructional developers is required.

The authors give the example of Merill’s second generation instructional design theory as an example of application of moderate constructivism. This assumes that
• mental models are constructed by the learner as a result of experience,
• content of each individual’s mental model may be different, but the structure is the same,
• knowledge can be pre-specified and represented in a knowledge base that applies to different domains;
• teaching authentic tasks in context is desirable, but teaching decontextualised abstractions is also necessary
• instructional strategy and subject matter are somewhat independent
• there are fundamental instructional transactions that can be adapted to a wide variety of situations and used with different subject matter contents
• there are classes of strategies appropriate for all learners
• learning should be active but not always collaborative
• testing could be integrated and consistent with learning objectives, but separate assessment of achievement is also possible

Technology tools supporting moderate constructivism include hypermedia environments that offer non-linear learning and increased learner control;virtual realities offer experiential learning and phenomenaria (artificially limited arenas where phenomena to investigate occur), webQuests and other WorldWideWeb offerings.

DISCUSSION
The article endorses my personal view that design needs to be eclectic. Having come across Merill's more recent work in course readings, I found references to him in this article more significant.

The authors note that within constructivism, the design task is one of providing rich context within which meaning can be negotiated, and ways of understanding emerge. If each leaner has a unique perspective, the concept of “average” learner is rejected. This becomes a problem for design when, as in an earlier reading (8 by Barbour) the practice at secondary school level aims at the average and below average student.
I’m also reminded of problems I posed at the end of reading 5. If learners arrive with different levels of prior knowledge, how does the designer know where to begin?

Reading 9 (Theme 4)

Reading Log 9 (theme 4)
Second reading on Theme 4: Development and Design of courses

Metros, S. (2005). Learning Objects: A Rose by Any Other Name. Educause Review (40) (4) pp.12 – 13. Downloaded on 1 July 2008 from http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/LearningObjectsARosebyAny/40559

The term “Learning Objects” has not been a common one in my personal readings and studies up to now. Prompted by course readings, I searched for something more and this short article was the first one I found. It addresses reasons for the diminishing use of the term and offers a more specific definition.

Reasons for failure of learning objects to transform education:
• Broad, ambiguous definition
• Unfamiliarity of sharing and reusing material
• Time and cost of developing high quality material
• Lack of indexing standards for easy retrieval
• Low knowledge management investment
• Little documented proof of advantages

Author’s amended definition:
Any digital resource that can be reused to mediate learning and which includes/links to (1) a learning objective (2) a practice activity and (3) an assessment.

In addressing the other bulleted points above, noteworthy comments include:
• Problems with ownership and copywrite
• Poorly designed learning objects may harm learning
• Little formal, published research on the successful use of learning objects

Most recent trends
• Despite decreased use of the term “learning objects” a move towards sharable educational content continues
• They are part of learner-centred, nonlinear, customisable, media-rich educational content
• Contribution-oriented pedagogy (student-instructor codevelopments) enhances quality
• Constantly becoming easier to upload, share, store

DISCUSSION and QUESTIONS:
For me, the value of the article lay in the clarification of the definition. While one of the benefits of learning objects is reusability, I find 2 problems relsted to this:
1. To what extent might designing a learning object in such a way that it can be re-used be a limiting factor in terms of its relevance within specific contexts and thus render it less effective ?
2. One of the benefits of re-usability is the cost factor. Would the need to ensure contextual relevance and the need to deal with specific learner needs (bearing in mind the need to be learner-centred) not mean time and costs in adapting material? By the same token, is there not a danger that the availability of learning objects could drive design rather than the other way round and thus reduce quality?
3 Postscript: According to the above definition, mashups would not be included as learning objects as , from my current understanding, they would/could involve larger amounts of data being incorporated. Nevertheless of interest here is that according to the Horizon Report 2008, a research project at the University of Oregon has created a tool that allows users to collect data about objects in the virtual world of Second Life and export it to a website. The tool is designed to be used to catalogue educational objects that can be found in the virtual world.
(The report may be found at http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report.pdf )

Reading 8 (Theme 4)

Reading 8 : first reading on theme 4: Development and Design of Courses

Barbour, M.(2005).Design of Web-based courses for secondary students. Journal of Distance Learning. 9(1), 27-36. Downloaded on 29 June 2008 from http://deanz.org.nz/journal

About the author: Michael Barbour is currently Assistant Professor in Instructional Technology at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. Further details are available on his website at http://www.michaelbarbour.com/index.htm

The paper reports the initial findings of a study that investigated design characteristics of a web-based distance education programme for rural secondary school students in Newfoundland and Labrador. Participants were course developers and teachers in a virtual high school context. Research involved interviews and document analysis. Secondary data came from the CDLI homepage, server and developer’s template.

Literature review justifies the need for this research. Post secondary experimenting with technologies is outpacing collection of data to test mediational effects of tools. Adult learners value structure, clear guidelines, increased student-instructor communication and increased opportunities to suggest alternative approaches. (Callini and Barron ,2001-2002; Stein ,2004). Difference between pedagogy and androgogy (Knowles, 1970) – adults are more self-directing; are more experienced; have greater readiness to learn; have more immediacy of application; are more problem-centred.

Earlier research (Collis, 1999) on Web-based course design yielded 10 guidelines for instructional designers.
1. Plan for flexibility and adaptation
2. Design for a variety of interchangeable roles for instructors and students
3. Do not assume use of the course-support site as a primary source of course content
4. Use course-support site to supplement study materials, integrate and manage study activities
5. Design for student and instructor input and use of a variety of combinations of supplemental media and resources
6. Design for minimum levels of technical support, computer-related skills, competencies and online time.
7. Use minimum fixed-text, graphic and iconic elements; provide context-sensitive help
8. Offer a flexible assortment of tools for different communication configurations
9. Design to organisational flexibility
10. Be realistic about what instructors can/will do


This Research found:
a) contradiction between the developer’s constructivist design perspective and the behaviourist-based CDLI template used for lesson development . A comparative table comparing the template with Gagne’s 9 events of instruction is given.
b) 10 initial guidelines developers seem to use when designing secondary courses :
1. Develop a good sets of notes and worked examples
2. Students rarely use “You will learn” / “You should know” sections in the developer’s template but go straight to the activities- include lesson objectives in their lesson rather than separately
3. Lesson should provide student with clear instructions and expectations
4. Limit text
5. Include image or visual cue
6. Include interactive items with selections based on solid content or pedagogy – minimise distractions
7. Use real-life examples
8. Avoid the same format for every lesson; each lesson should offer a sense of choice
9. Design for average or below average student; keep it simple as possible
10. Plan entire course before beginning


DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS:
Of particular interest to me is the appropriacy of using research on post-secondary to inform secondary teaching. Justification based on Knowles’ 4 assumptions of pedagogy as opposed to androgogy was thus interesting but Barbour ambiguously notes that “Many of these assumptions were counter to the picture presented by the interviewees of their experiences with adolescent learners” but disappointingly, does not elaborate other than to note the relative immaturity. To what extent is immaturity sufficient justification for design practice 9 (cater to average/below average)? To what extent would practice 9 also justify exclusion of possible collaborative activities in the design?

With implied criticism Burbour notes that the behaviourist template did not match the constructivist approach of the developers. Does this matter? I am reminded of the observations of Cronje (2006) who suggested that any learning event may draw from both objectivism and constructivism if not simultaneously, then sometimes in such rapid succession that it simultaneous. Can strategies born in objectivist and behaviourist activities not be integrated with constructivism? Could learning objects based on behaviourist strategies embedded in a constructivist design be extraneous cognitive overload for some secondary students and scaffolding for others?

References:
Cronje, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward Integrating Objectivism and
Constructivism in Instructional design and the Learning Sciences.
Educational Technology Research and Development . 54 (4): 387-416.

Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and consequences for Computer assisted Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 32 (2): 183 - 194.

Reading 7 (Theme 3)

Reading 7 Second reading on Issues Trends and Developments

Kanuka, H. & Rourke, L.(2008). Exploring amplifications and reductions associated with e- learning: conversations with leaders of e-learning programs. Technology, Pedagogy and Education. 17(1) 5-15 Downloaded on 14 June 2008 from http://www.informaworld.com.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/smpp/section?content=a790657402&fulltext=713240928

Although I have been looking for articles on recent trends and issues in schools, the abstract to this very recent article suggested it would fill some research gaps. However, it really serves simply to remind leaders of benefits and deficits.

The paper explores the effects of e-learning technology from the perspective of Ihde’s (1990) theorem that technology “both amplifies and reduces certain aspects of human experiences through its selectivity and intentionality” and is non-neutral.

The purpose was to probe the changes occurring as a result of e-learning technology used in higher education. While research into the superiority /inferiority of e-learning was prolific, research gaps regarding the amplification and reduction of learning experiences in e-learning existed.

Method: an interpretive approach using unstructured interviews

Sample: 12 senior academics at dual mode, research-intensive universities. All were administrators who also teach and research within their programme.

Findings: Opinions fell into 4 already well-researched categories. They are summarised below with the respective amplification vs. reduction findings.

1. Flexibility and Convenience
Amplification:
- students’ private lives remain unchanged and a first priority
- improved access through removal of temporal,
- geographical and situational barriers
Reduction:
- subordination of study time to other obligations
- a loss of a sense of belongingness
- teacher’s “space slippage” – teachers experience too much familiarity because of unending proximity to students

2. Course design
Amplification:
- greater time, care and collaboration with experts can lead to higher-quality learning experience
Reduction:
- reduction of teachable moments
- Loss of cultural discourse;
- Potential for course stagnation because of time and effort in alterations
- possible decline in academic freedom and teaching as a scholarly activity; intellectual
commercialisation of e-learning packages by textbook publishers partnered with
software corporations

3. Equality and Equity
Amplification:
- equitable opportunity to participate
- equalising presence
Reduction:
- students are not forced to confront their bias
- students can hide their presence

4. Thinking and Learning Skills
Amplification:
- increased interaction between teachers and learners
- asynchronous internet communication promotes critical reflection
Reduction:
- fewer opportunities to develop oracy skills


Recommendations:
*Leaders of e-learning programmes should create a sense of belongingness and provide guidance about social and academic boundaries
*Blended e-learning programs compensate for loss of teachable moments, cultural discourse, campus culture and academic freedom and integrity
*Inclusion of internet-based audio and video communication /conferencing tools

The evidence that technologies represent both losses and gains to higher education must be considered in technology-driven educational reform.


DISCUSSION
1. Lurking is referred to as one of the reductions of e-learning. How can a leader discourage this practice without upsetting the social balance of the online class or making the lurker feel even more vulnerable?
On the other hand, while lurkers may not contribute to discussion they themselves are still absorbing it, so learning is still happening for that person (albeit selfishly and non-collaboratively). Furthermore, to what extent should it be accepted (and/or even accommodated) that a certain amount of lurking will take place for new e-learners as they build up confidence to express themselves so publicly and learn the ethics of collaboration?
2. To what extent would audio-video conferencing truly enhance the learning if an online collaborative community has already been established? For some students this might well be a reduction rather than an amplification - the very anonymity of online discussion which gives the shy learner confidence may be experienced as threatening.





.

Reading 6 (Theme Three)

Reading 6 First reading on Theme Three: Issues, trends and Developments

Graham, Charles, R. (2007). Blended Learning Systems: Definition, Current trends, and Future Directions . In The Handbook of Blended Learning : Global Perspectives, Local Designs (pp3 – 21). C.Bonk & C. Graham. (Eds.) San Francisco: Pfeiffer

Graham’s definition: Blended learning systems combine face-to-face instruction with computer-mediated instruction.

Besides the most common reason for blending being the combination of the best of both worlds, Osguthorpe and Graham (cited, 2003) identified 6 reasons for blending:

1. pedagogical richness
2. access to knowledge
3. social interaction
4. personal agency
5. cost-effectiveness
6. ease of revision

Graham, Allen & Ure (2003,2005) elaborate on the most common:

· improved pedagogy – increased level of active learning strategies, peer-to-peer learning strategies, learner- centred strategies, improved levels of authenticity, collaborative learning and problem-solving

· increased access and flexibility – especially for more mature learners

· increased cost effectiveness – opportunity for reaching a large, globally dispersed audience in a short time with consistent, semi-personal delivery

Graham distinguishes 4 different levels of blends viz activity-level, course-level, program-level and institutional level then goes on to examine how to blend. He provides a table indicating the categories of blended learning systems that can be summarised as follows:

• enabling blends – address issues of access and convenience
• enhancing blends – allow incremental changes to pedagogy without radically changing the teaching/learning process
• transforming blends – allow a radical transformation of the pedagogy that enable intellectual activity not possible without technology

Six issues and challenges of blending are identified:

· The role of live interaction – under what conditions is human interaction important to the learning process and to learner satisfaction?

· The tension between a learner’s choice of a blended course vs their level of self-regulation

· Aspects of support and training – time factors, technological skills, organisational culture, professional development

· Digital divide between information and communication technologies available to different groups

· Cultural adaptation ; the need to balance global and local interests

· Balance between innovation and production in a constantly changing technological environment

Blends must take advantage of the strengths of each environment and avoid the weaknesses. A table is used to evaluate relative strengths and weaknesses of face-toface discussion with computer-mediated learning environments

Computer-mediated (asynchronous)

• strengths: flexibility, participation, depth of reflection
• weaknesses: spontaneity loss, procrastination, impersonal

Face-to-face (in-class)

• strengths: human connection, spontaneity
• weaknesses: limited participation, inflexibility of time

Future directions require

· identification of successful BL models at all levels that can be adapted to work in contexts.

· Capitalising on the unique affordances available in face-to-face, computer-mediated or distributed learning environments.

Discussion:

1. Without appropriate professional development, there could be a danger that at school level some blends could simply offer the same old teaching with additional novel student appeal. Mayer (2001 in Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006) has shown that under some conditions multimedia presentations can actually hinder learning when visualisation focuses on irrelevant content and detail, a statement reminiscent of split attention problems related to cognitive load theory. How can one ensure the educational integrity of a blended approach?
2. Because of the traditional structure of schools, most school blends would be at the “enhancing blends” level. Should schools stop at this level and leave the transformational pedagogies to tertiary institutions? Is radical restructuring of schools to move to the transformational level justified in terms of the added learning value vs professional, financial and organisational demands?
3. Should some form of blended learning be made compulsory in schools in order to encourage and develop New Zealand’s intellectual capital in keeping with the MOE’s 2002 expectations (Anderson, 2005)?

References:

Larreamendy-Joerns, J. & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567-605.

Anderson, B. (2005). New Zealand: Is online education a highway to the future? (pp. 163-178).
In A.A. Carr-Chelman (Ed.), Global perspectives on e-learning: Rhetoric and reality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reading 5 (Theme Two)

Reading 5

Third reading on Theme Two: Underpinning teaching with technology: Theory and research Foundations

Martens, R., Bastiaens, T., & Kirschner, P. (2007). New Learning Design in Distance Education: The impact on student perception and motivation. Distance Education, 28(1) pp.81-93.

Downloaded on 20 April 2008 from http://kea.massey.ac.nz/search~S4?/fDistance+Education/fdistance+education/1,2,2,B/l856~b1405259&FF=fdistance+education&1,1,,1,0

Motivation (learner-centred psychological principles 7-9 cited in McCoombs & Vakili’s, 2005 ) resulted in this article arresting my attention. Written from a constructivist perspective this is a report on a study into the actual perception of electronic authentic learning tasks in which perceptions of students at Open University of the Netherlands were contrasted with the designer’s expectations.

A table adapted from Dalgarno (1998) showing 10 constructivist design principles is given but the authors comment that designing by these principles does not guarantee success. The effort in CEEs (constructivist e-learning environments) relies on intrinsic motivation therefore learners’ perceptions are critical. Reference is made to Simons et al’s instructional models of the new learning (competency-based education that integrates constructivism and ICT) viz. guided learning (awakening students’ curiosity); experiential learning (let students follow own curiosity and interest) ; action learning ( organise action to arouse curiosity).

Constructivist principles require CEEs to be challenging and contextually authentic so that learners become intrinsically motivated to explore and control their own learning process. Designer challenges are:

• Difficult to determine what ‘new learning skills” are
• What is delivered is driven by what is technologically possible rather than what is educationally desirable
• Designers must gauge students’ perception
• Paucity of clear guidelines for designing new learning tasks
• Little empirical evidence for claims re supposed motivational impact of “constructivist” e-learning programs

Questions researched: - How do students learn in CEEs that provide a “virtual” reality and authentic problems? - How do students perceive it? - How do student opinions relate to the opinions and expectations of developers?

Tasks used in study were authentic, ill-structured - designed to stimulate intrinsic motivation to resolve the “confusion” thus constructing required knowledge and skills.

Findings:

• mismatch between positive expectations about CEEs and student perceptions;
• amount of intrinsic motivation correlated with amount of self-reported explorative behaviour.

Conclusions

• limited understanding of how complex key variables influence student behaviour;

• crucial variable is intrinsic motivation

Feelings of competence, relatedness and autonomy are crucial for the development of intrinsic motivation. The amount of intrinsic motivation highly correlated with the amount of self-reported explorative behaviour.

Discussion:

1. According to the fourth principle of Androgogy, adults become ready to learn "when their life situations create a need to learn.” (Huang, 2002) . This would contribute to the intrinsic motivation referred to in this article and existing as principle 9 of the learner-centred psychological principles. If intrinsic motivation is crucial to success of CEEs, can they be as effectively implemented indiscriminately with younger (e.g. secondary) students ?

2. What struck me was that not only are the ‘design guidelines vague” but “once the task is delivered to the students there is relatively little control over student perception”. (p.84) What can designers do between design and early online delivery to ensure the appropriate levels of challenge when designers can only “gauge” the students?

References

Huang, H. (2000) Toward Constructivism for Adult Learners in Online Learning Environments.
British Journal of Educational Technology. 33(1), 27-37.

McCombs, B.L. & Vakili, D. (2005). A learner-centred framework for e-learning. Teachers
College Record, 107, 1582 – 1600.

Reading 4 (Theme Two):

Second reading on Theme Two: Underpinning teaching with technology: Theory and research Foundations

Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003) The Expertise reversal Effect. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 23-31.

Downloaded on 28 March 2008 by Massey University

This reading was prompted by the previous reading (1 of theme 2) . The authors outline cognitive load theory and then review the empirical literature on the interaction between instructional techniques and levels of learner experience that suggested the expertise reversal effect.

The expertise reversal problem is explained by applying the CLT principles. Many instructional design recommendations give no explicit reference to learner knowledge levels. Some recommendations apply only to learners with limited experience. Experts bring their activated schemas that give full guidance to the process of constructing mental representations of a task. Additional guidance becomes redundant and unnecessarily uses up working memory in cross referencing and integration and results in poorer performance.

The research focused on how expertise can alter relative instructional effectiveness. The article reviews the following empirical studies of interactions between levels of expertise and

• the split-attention and redundancy effects (e.g. text and diagrams);
• text processing (e.g. additional explanation to increase coherence);
• the modality and redundancy effects (replication of information via both auditory and visual sources as opposed to dual-mode presentation);
• the worked example effect (appropriacy of worked example as opposed to problem-solving);
• the isolated or interacting elements effect (mixed instructional method followed by interacting elements);
• the imagination effect (worked examples as opposed to imagining procedures)

Findings from the above research foci consistently confirm the expertise reversal effect. The conclusion is that design must be tailored to the level of experience of the learners.

Discussion:

1. This is a warning that recommendations to use particular designs can be counterproductive if they are not based on sound learning theory, research and knowledge of the learner’s needs. It illustrates the importance of planning in design and suggests that greater collaboration between student and teacher would increase the effectiveness of the design. This points to the importance of the instructor-student relationship which leads me to reflect on Garrison’s Community of Inquiry framework in which the social – cognitive-teaching presence facilitates the educational experience.

2. What can an instructor do in the initial phases of setting up an online class to include some form of reconnaissance of developmental experiences learners bring to the learning situation?

Reading 3 (Theme Two)

First reading on Theme Two: Underpinning teaching with technology: Theory and research Foundations

Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.

Downloaded on 28 March by Massey University

This is the introductory article to an issue devoted to Cognitive Load Theory and with Sweller himself one of the authors, it offers a good overview of the theory and terminology related to CLT which itself provides a framework for investigations into cognitive processes and instructional design.

Intrinsic cognitive load relates to the material being learned. Conscious cognitive processing of the element interactivity is done in the working memory.

Extraneous or ineffective cognitive load refers to problematic instructional procedures in task design that interfere with schema acquisition and automation.

Germane or effective cognitive load enhances learning: working memory resources are able to be devoted to schema acquisition and automation because effective material presentation. Increases in effort or motivation can increase cognitive resources and if relevant to schema acquisition and automation, increases germane cognitive load.

For learning to occur the sum of intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive loads needs to be less than the working memory resources available. Effective instructional design that reduces extraneous load and increases germane load improves learning; schema acquisition reduces intrinsic cognitive load and frees working memory capacity.

The original static focus of CLT aimed to develop instructional techniques to reduce extraneous cognitive load (goal specificity, split-attention, etc). Emergence of a dynamic approach considers intrinsic load as the property of the task and considers alterations in the cognitive load that occur with increasing expertise. Its main outcome has been the expertise reversal effect – previously effective instructional techniques can lose effectiveness with experts.

Some instructional consequences include: need for realistic tasks, simple-to-complex sequencing, provision of worked examples; appropriate timing of information and provision of overarching supportive information (big-picture) .

Discussion and questioning

When this paper was written (2003), little had been done to measure cognitive load. I will have to research more recent developments as it would be very valuable in terms of accommodating learner differences (cf Learner-centred psychological principles 12 – 14) in design.

The dynamic approach that recognises the problem of the expertise reversal effect presents a very practical problem to the designer. How does design accommodate the different stages learners are at in an online task – a problem exacerbated by the variance in time, pace and motivation of online learners? This problem prompts more reading.

Technology influences the learning context. Does one have to be more careful in online learning that important information does not get lost-in-delivery for the more technology-savvy students taking shortcuts while for others the technology itself becomes extraneous cognitive load? How does one accommodate both possibilities in practice?

Reading 2 (Theme 1)

Second reading on Theme One: What's behind my teaching? A personal philosophy

Kelly, Lynda (2000). Understanding conceptions of learnng. Sydney: University of Technology. Downloaded on 6 March 2008 from http://www.austmus.gov.au/amarc/pdf/research/paper2000.pdf

This paper is written from a learner-centred constructivist and experiential perspective. It records qualitative research into museum learning and looks at how an individual’s “learning image” (their personal philosophy of learning) can be uncovered. The research was located within grounded theory drawing on phenomenography as an analysis tool. It was concerned with how adult museum visitors think and talk about learning.

The authorial researchers argue that in order to understand learning we must start with the learner’s experience rather than the content or outcome of the learning.

Their definition: “learning is a dynamic process dependant on both the individual and thieir environment that focuses on some change ( a change in point of view/the way one sees the world/knowledge/skill level/the way a person sees themselves)

The first part of this paper deals with previously researched conceptions of learning. They cite Marton and Svensson’s (1979) 3 aspects of studying conceptions of learning, viz.
How the person relates themselves to the situation
How the learner makes meaning from content
How the learner thinks about their learning as a conscious act
They surmise that thinking about learning as a conscious act enhances the learning

Marton et al(1993) suggest a hierarchy of conceptions of learning ranging from increasing knowledge to “changing as a person”.

Park (1994) found that respondents felt that learning that had been chosen by an individual is associated with higher levels of fulfilment than learning imposed upon him/her ; self-chosen learning associated with fulfilment.

Griffin (1998) found students thought they were not learning unless they were doing something “formal” as at school

Taylor & Spencer (1994) People regarded formal education as associated with school and “ imposed and prescriptive”; learning was informal, positive, personal, ongoing, lifelong

Some of Kelly’s findings:
Early learning experiences recalled are intensely personal and related to things outside of formal “content” of school
Remembered experiences outside of school link with children’s interests
Social learning experiences were significant
Learning as opposed to remembering
Relevant learning is more satisfying
The internet was seen as a valuable learning tool; often the starting point for finding information

Discussion

Researching the type of learning that occurs in a museum was a novel one for me but offered an interesting context for exploring conceptions of learning. It brings to the forefront the ideas of informal learning vs formal learning and it highlighted the differences in perceptions of learning. The student responses that “just looking around” did not count as learning and that learning is something formal that happened in school confirmed for me the need for conscious reflection and application that makes the learning conscious. It also made me re-think my ideas of serendipitous learning. For example, when I have given students a task that has involved online research, I have always believed that the process may lead to “incidental serendipitous” learning via browsing. Should students be encouraged to provide feedback on the search itself as well as the findings in order for such incidental learning to be recognised and valued?

The other interesting aspect of the research referred to the adult responses. They regarded formal education in a negative light and viewed informal education as real learning and a positive developmental process. The idea of experiencing higher levels of fulfilment from learning that had been chosen than by learning that had been imposed upon them draws attention to the idea of motivation for learning and the possible advantages of including some level of choice. I believe this provides a level of learner empowerment or control that supports a more positive level of self-efficacy and makes me consider the question – To what extent should we include the opportunity for choice in lesson design?

References from article:
Griffin, J. (1998). School-museum Integrated Learning Experiences in Science: A Learning
journey. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Sydney: University of Technology
Marton, F. and Svensson, L. (1979). Conceptions of research in student learning. Higher
education, 8(4), 471-486.
Park, A. (1994). Individual commitment to lifelong learning; individuals’ attitudes: report on the
quantitative phase. Research series no. 32. Moorfoot. Sheffield: Employment Department.
Taylor, S. and Spencer, E. (1994). Individual commitment to lifelong learning: individuals’
attitudes: report on the qualitative phase. Research series No. 31. Moorfoot, Sheffield; Employment Department.

THEME 1

First reading on Theme One: What's behind my teaching? A personal philosophy


Solomon, David L. (2000). Philosophy and the Learning Ecology: The Meaning of Learning Project . Learning Development Institute. Presidential Session at AECT Denver October 25-28, 2000. Downloaded on 1 March from http://www.learndev.org/dl/DenverSolomon.PDF


Introduction:
In 2000 the Learning Development Institution embarked on their Meaning of Learning (MOL) project to explore “the interconnections between, the synergy among, and the complementarity of views represented in the existing dispersed areas of inquiry and practice”. MOL functioned as a community of scholars and practitioners, who collaborated on, and contributed to, the social construction of the meaning of learning. Interaction within this community was facilitated through a web-based learning environment in addition to face-to-face encounters. Further information on this project may be found at http://www.learndev.org/MoL.html

Summary

Solomon provides definitions of philosophy and learning and a summary of phenomenology as a theory of knowledge and as a method of inquiry. The paper explores the meaning of learning by drawing connections between philosophical inquiry and the learning ecology; it offers a philosophical theory of knowledge ; it suggests confluent education as a model for learning beyond traditional instructional context and it suggests implications for educators.

Philosophy involves
- questioning one’s own point of view as well as others
- searching for defined and defensible values
- clarifying one’s beliefs and attitudes
- formulating a framework for making decisions and acting on decisions
A philosophical approach is necessary because
- as an academic discipline it provides a foundation for theory
- philosophical inquiry challenges instructional technologists to think critically about the best ways to facilitate learning
- enables action in accordance with insights when the personal philosophies are clear

Solomon frames his discussion of the meaning of learning on a theory of knowledge based on the assumption that knowledge acquisition is a dimension of learning. In terms of phenomenology, knowledge becomes rooted in perceptual experiences and it becomes meaningful through reflection. As a method of inquiry phenomenology posits that through eidetic reduction, attention is shifted from perceptual experiences to abstract properties bringing direct knowledge to the surface and allowing connections to be made; “thus revealing universal truths”. Solomon uses this reasoning as motivation for embracing the confluent education metaphor (the ‘flowing together” of the cognitive and affective domains) which integrates various dimensions of learning and which he suggests can become a model for a wider meaning of learning which allows us to experience our own perceptions with the understanding that they are not arbitrary but grounded in a knowable universe.

Learning occurs through reflection upon experiences that are unique to a given discipline; presenting multiple perspectives within a discipline enhances learning. In the learning ecology, a change in one part affects all others, so distinct parts of the learning ecology can be influenced to produce a wider meaning of learning.

Key terms and ideas mentioned in relation to learning: immersion in discipline-based inquiry, situated learning , cognitive apprenticeship, authentic environments, reflective practice; interdisciplinary learning; construction of knowledge

Discussion
Solomon presents learning as experience and reflection. Although active reflection is referred to, there is no reference to the action of application that would embed the reflective experience and bring about longer lasting change. While Solomon’s presentation of learning reflects Pratt’s (1998, p. 47) reference to the developmental perspective of learning as being the change in the quality of one’s thinking, he does not articulate the concept of adaptation (Kolb, 1984) as a characteristic of learning. As educators, can we philosophically be “satisfied” that learning has occurred on “reflection”? What is the evidence of reflection? Furthermore, if, considering the interaction of learning ecology and learning experience, learner’s experiences differ – how then can the educator be assured that the correct learning has transpired? Based on this thinking, to what extent then, should a philosophy of learning include some aspect of recognition of the effectiveness and even the “correctness” of the learning?
Solomon’s understanding of learning reflects the developmental, experiential and nurturing approaches to learning. In his suggestions (not summarised above) he recommends metacognitive activities and meditation on the nature of knowledge. There does however seem to be an assumption that the learner automatically wants to learn. While a wide meaning of learning is given here, I miss something about self-regulated learning that encourages the continued cycle of learning.

References:
Pratt, D. $ Associates. (1998). Alternative frames of understanding. Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education (pp35-53). Malabar, FL: Kreiger.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.