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.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Friday, August 1, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, July 18, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
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?
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?
Monday, July 7, 2008
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 )
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 )
Saturday, July 5, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
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.
.
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.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)