Technology and Media for Distance Education
Static versus Dynamic Technologies
Static technologies in distance education are described as knowledge objects or discrete items that can be integrated into lessons as for example, a text, graphic, audio, video, or interactive file (Anderson, 2008).
Dynamic technologies or learning objects in distance education are described as being more highly developed, consisting of discrete lessons, learning units or courses. Dynamic technologies allow for user interaction and decision making which determines the outcome. An example of a dynamic technology is an interactive book or story in which the student chooses a path in which to travel down at the end of each chapter. The outcome is dependent upon the choices the student makes.
Personally, I am constantly experimenting with both static and dynamic technologies in order to provide recommendation or evaluative results for my classroom teachers. I have yet to design an online course whereby I could incorporate either type of technology, although I hope to in the future, maybe not as a professor but as a means of disseminating professional development opportunities for my teaching staff. Through this course I have learned the value of including technology media to provoke higher-level thinking skills, interaction, collaboration and retention.
Engaging Learners with New Strategies and Tools
The emergence of technology tools have changed the way in which we communicate, collaborate and share information. The technology tools listed above in my graphic organizer are just a few of the Web 2.0 tools available. By Web 2.0 I mean online, web applications that are used to facilitate interactivity among users, accessible from any device that can connect to the World Wide Web.
Research has shown that by integrating Web 2.0 tools into online distance education, that the experience is equivalent to, if not better than that of classroom instruction. That is as long as the appropriate tool is matched to the task. Research has also shown that in order for communication and collaboration to occur the learning environment must also be one that is supportive, open, and respectful. This is achieved by building a community in which trust has been established among members, timelines are adhered to, communication is conducted in a timely manner, clear and concise rubrics are provided to ensure fair and equitable assessment, and plenty of opportunities for self and peer reflection.
Lets look at the three main categories of strategies and tools from above. For the most part communication tools are synchronous – occurring at the same time. Communication tools provide just that, a way to communicate. Collaboration tools on the other hand provide a central location to share ideas and resources, work collaboratively on projects, and are usually asynchronous – not happening at the same time. Asynchronous tools allow for deeper understanding over synchronous tools in that participants have time to think about and research before responding. The content tools listed are repositories for information, all kinds of information from documents, videos, images, to entire course content.
Integrated together or individually, in either an online or traditional learning environment, these tools have the potential and capabilities to bring new meaning to teaching and learning. These tools allow for anytime, anywhere learning, promote deeper understanding and self-discovery, and connect individuals with experts from around the world.
I just recently attended a conference where the speaker was on stage giving a lecture while at the same time, a wikispace environment that had been created for audience participation, was being projected simultaneously on the big screen. The audience was encouraged to provide input as the speaker was lecturing by commenting on the wiki, which provided immediate input and feedback from the group. It was quite powerful.
I can’t help but wonder how will educators in a K-12 environment take advantage of these tools of engagement while at the same time being held accountable to administration and school boards for child safety, even though children of this generation are versed at using these tools.
References:
Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190−193. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&hid=14&sid=92990109-4ba7-4ad4-a8a1-90081e57245b%40sessionmgr13, Accession Number 19754742.
Siemens, G. (2008, January). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. IT Forum. Retrieved from Google Scholar: http://www.tskills.it/userfiles/Siemens.pdf
Siemens. (2008, Nov 18). Personal learning environments. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2008/11/18/personal-learning-environments-7/.
Siemens, G. (2007, September). 10 minute lecture – George Siemens – Curatorial teaching. Retrieved from: http://elluminate.tekotago.ac.nz/play_recording.html?recordingId=1188267162821_1190072043500.
Anderson, T. (2010). Teaching in an online learning context. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.), (pp. pp343-365). Edmonton, AB: AU Press, Athabasca University.
Module 3 / Blog Post
1. How should participation in a collaborative learning community be assessed?
According to Palloff and Pratt (2005), collaborative activities are best assessed collaboratively. This is not to say that the instructor is void of all responsibilities for assessing collaborative work but that group members themselves are more often than not better able to assess how well individual team members contributed to the collaborative effort and are better able to assess their own contributions through self-assessment and feedback. Clear and concise rubrics should be made available at the beginning of the class so that students know exactly what is expected of them and how their contributions will be measured. Evaluation and assessment should be part of the learning-teaching process, embedded in class activities and in the interaction between learners and between learners and teachers (Palloff and Pratt, 2007). Ongoing assessment of student performance linked to immediate feedback and individualized instruction supports learning (Swan, 2004).
Although student involvement in collaborative assessment further demonstrates the student’s own understanding and comprehension of the course content, instructors need to use good judgment and not let interpersonal difficulties among students sway assessment.
In my research I came across a very informative blog by Karen Mallette, in which Karen goes into great detail to explain why rubrics and feedback are so important in distance education. Mallette (2010) referenced the work of Phil Race who describes use a “ripples on a pond” model for describing the main factors of successful learning, in which Race (2001) claims feedback as the most essential factor.
2. How do the varying levels of skill and knowledge students bring to a course affect the instructor’s “fair and equitable assessment” of learning.
It is important to take into account the students’ perception of their own learning (Palloff and Pratt, 2007). Probably more so than in a traditional classroom, just by the nature of online learning, students participating in distance education come from varying backgrounds, have varying skill levels, diverse knowledge sets, cultural differences, come with a myriad of work and life experiences, not to mention age differences. Just as importantly, students bring to the online environment dissimilar personal, family and work responsibilities that can impact their learning. Students’ self-assessment regarding the amount of learning gained and learning objectives achieved is often just as important, or more so, than the instructor’s opinion of their work (Palloff and Pratt, 2007).
3. If a student does not want to network or collaborate in a learning community for an online course, what should the other members of the learning community do?
Initially, members of the learning community should reach out and try to communicate with the student to try to persuade the student to participate or at least do what they can to understand what the issue(s) may be that are preventing the student from participating. With understanding, it may be possible to come to a mutual agreement and practical solution that would work for all members of the community. If that doesn’t work, would be the responsibility of the group members to enlist the assistance of the instructor so as to prevent possible ramifications that would affect the entire group.
4. What role should the instructor play?
The instructor should take on the role of mediator for the group by reaching out to the student to offer guidance, assistance and encouragement while at the same time reminding the student of their obligations to themselves and to their learning community and remind them of the consequences of non-participation.
5. What impact would this have on his or her assessment plan?
If a student refuses to work collaboratively as part of a learning community then the instructor would be forced to grade accordingly. If the instructor provided the class with clear expectations and rubrics that would be used for assessment at the onset of the course, then the student shouldn’t be surprised at the assessment results received.
Having said that, I would hope that the instructor would take into consideration the difference between refusal to participate versus extenuating circumstances outside of the student’s control that prevented participation.
References:
Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning in online environments. In Sloan-C (Ed), Effective practices in learning effectiveness (pp. 1-6).
Siemens, G. (2009). The future of distance education. (Vodcast). Principals of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc. Baltimore.
Simonson, M. (2008). Distance education: The next generation. (Vodcast). Principles of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc. Baltimore.
Mallette, K. (2010, April 23). Evaluation and Assessment in Online Learning [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://kmallette.files.wordpress.com/2010/07 otl-541_finalproject.pdf
Race, P. (2001, February 16). Using feedback to help students learn. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/resourcedatabase/id432_using_feedback.pdf
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007) Building online learning communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Module 2 / Week 4 Assignment
In the vodcast: “The Future of Distance Education”, Dr. George Siemens (2009) discusses how the growing acceptance of distance education is being fueled by three major factors: increased acceptance, increased experience, and increased global dimension. Siemens also identifies three elements that can be viewed as responsible for the exponential growth of on-line learning as; global diversity, communication, and collaborative interaction.
Increased acceptance stems from increased experience. According to Toffler (1980), we’ve seen three waves of change over the years. Wave one being the agricultural wave which saw extended families working the land and where communication was mostly face to face. Wave two was the industrial age where entire generations worked in factories and the family makeup was more nuclear or immediate family members only. Wave three was the information age responsible for the diffusion of the internet and email, collaboration and teamwork and single parents. So as we progressed through the waves of change, technological tools for correspondence became more readily available and cost efficient thanks to high-speed internet connections and web 2.0 resources. As individuals grasped these resources to communicate with families and friends across the country, their comfort level and experience with the tools increased so did their acceptance. At the same time, in the educational realm, professors of higher education began to realize that on-line resources could provide an equivalent learning experience for the student as that of attending a lecture in person, held at the university or college. Cost benefits also exist in distance education for institutions by addressing the need for more dormitory space, parking, professors and broadened access.
Lets look specifically at collaborative interaction within an educational setting. According to Siemens (2009), Collaborative activities are important for the development of critical thinking skills, co-creation of knowledge and meaning, reflection and transformation of learning. With the prevalence of various social media tools, faculty can design creative online learning activities by asking students to use one or more tools to work on their learning tasks and achieve their learning objectives (Zhang, 2010). Technology has the power to make the instructor a better facilitator or coach, bringing greater resources to bear in the classroom and adjusting the instruction to fit the individual (Christen, 2010). Collaboration interaction accomplishes creativity and critical thinking, allows students to create a shared goal for learning, addresses all learning styles and addresses issues of culture (Siemens, 2009). A sense of community is necessary for successful collaboration, whereby members feel responsibility not only for their own success but that of their community members as well. Accountability and encouragement among members must exist in order for favorable collaboration to occur. Ultimately, the success of an online collaborative community rests with the instructor’s commitment to cultivating the transformation through the social process members must accept of trust building, a sense of shared purpose, and establishing boundaries and the enforcement of rules.
Lastly, Siemens (2009) envisioned a growing partnership between universities, government and business working in partnership to bring about a global, on-line collaborative learning environment using shared resources and expertise and that learner comfort with the whole process will drive on-line learning.
Resources:
Siemens, G. (2009.). The future of distance education. (Vodcast). Principles of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc. Baltimore
Simonson, M. (2008). Distance education: The next generation. (Vodcast). Principles of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc. Baltimore.
Zhang, J. (2010, January 1). Social Media and Distance Education [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://deoracle.org/online-pedagogy/emerging-technologies/social-media-and-distance-education.html
Christen, A. (2009, April 8). Transforming the Classroom for Collaborative Learning in the 21st Century [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.6we.org/transforming-the-classroom-for-collaborative-learning-in-the-21st-century/
Olejnikova, L., Wittman, J. (2008, December). The case for collaborative tools: long-distance teamwork on a shoestring budget. Retrieved from AALLnet website: http://www.aallnet.org/products/pub_sp0812/pub_sp0812_PLL.pdf
Toffler, Alvin. (1980). The Third wave. New York: Bantam Books.
Interesting article …
in today’s NY Times regarding home schooling and technology.
Continued musing…
I received an email today from Walden stating that the rubric for our final assignment had been modified by the class creator. That got me to thinking, is Dr. Prowley the creator/designer of the course? If not, who is? And does this individual critique Dr. Prowley’s teaching practices to ensure they meet the intent of the originator? Is this individual linked to Walden or a hired instructional design consultant as Moller et al (2008) spoke about in their 3-part article?
Musing
Here’s proof, distant education does promote higher-level thinking skills!
I woke up this morning thinking about my posting of last night – Module 1 / Week 2 Blog.
Distance education is diffusing exponentially if evidence of my inbox is any indication. I must receive two or more invites weekly asking me to delve deeper into on-line course offerings from multiple colleges and universities. So, thinking about Moller’s et al (2008) 3-part article, how does a system modify current practices, especially if institutional decisions are based upon return on investment and the change could potentially be expensive if done correctly? Will students in on-line learning communities be the ones to push the envelope by demanding on-line instructional practices and instructors be equivalent, as compared to the traditional, high quality classroom learning? What technologies are currently available specifically for training potential on-line instructors in best practices?
I could go on thinking out loud, but I better get back to work!
**********************************************************************
Laurie Underwood, Student in Educational Technology Ph.D Program @ Walden University
Undwd's Blog 