AECT Bi-Annual Research Symposium

"The 3rd bi-annual Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) Research Symposium is soliciting research-supported papers concerning the next generation of distance education for presentation, debate, discussion, and future publication in a book by Springer Press. Ideally, the symposium will bring together scholars, theorists, researchers, and other creative thinkers for an intimate conversation about their research into the next generation of distance education and the principles that should guide effective practice and research as we advance toward to a new learning landscape unconstrained by time and space."

Please, take a moment to visit their website's invitation for presenters: http://www.aect.org/events/symposia/call/

Follow up to USDOE Report

In June, I wrote a post about the Department of Education’s Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies (2009). In that post, I reported the main findings listed in the press release, but had not fully evaluated the report. I took this opportunity to do so. The report has a lot to offer, so bear with me here!

The report outlines the following four purposes (U.S. Department of, 2009, p. xi):

1. How does the effectiveness of online learning compare with that of face-to-face instruction?
2. Does supplementing face-to-face instruction with online instruction enhance learning?
3. What practices are associated with more effective online learning?
4. What conditions influence the effectiveness of online learning?

It is a quantitative meta-analysis of existing empirical studies, contrasting the effectiveness of online, blended, and face-to-face learning. A process of research followed by thorough screening, coding, and full-text analysis yielded 51 studies for evaluation. The screening process looked for reports that (a) compared the modalities in question, (b) focused on learning outcomes, (c) demonstrated strong research methods and design, and (d) gave enough data to evaluate impact. Additionally, to control for inappropriate influence, they weighted studies based on their sample size before combining results during the data analysis. They also tested for homogeneity, moderator variables, practice variables, condition variables, and methods variables.

The results demonstrated the following:

1. Blended (online and face-to-face) learning maintained the strongest learning outcome advantage, followed by online only, and then face-to-face. However, this is not directly due to the delivery medium, but has more to do with increased time on task, greater accessibility to resources, and overall pedagogical differences evident in blended and online learning.
2. There is no significant difference in outcomes when comparing blended and online only mediums.
3. Overall, studies found no significant difference between instructional methodologies that included multiple media (video, audio, PowerPoint, etc…), and those that did not.
4. However, some advantage is present when students have some control over how they interact with media. For example, can students pause or chapter-jump a video or narrated PowerPoint, or are they required to watch them completely and linearly.
5. Research regarding the effectiveness of including quizzing in online learning is inconclusive.
6. Including simulations slightly increases students’ outcomes.
7. Including tools or assignments requiring students to reflect on their learning is the most effective method for improving student learning outcomes.
8. Online learning is an equally effective choice for undergraduates, graduates, and professionals throughout a large variety of studies. However, it is not as effective for K-12. (Although available studies in this area were limited.)
9. Learning platforms combining asynchronous and synchronous methods seemed more effective than platforms with only one of these.

For online higher education, these results are encouraging. And, I am happy the effectiveness of online learning is unconstrained by the medium, and relies more on how it us utilized by educators. This is reminiscent of Gardner’s (2003) plea to ensure technology serves education, instead of the reverse.

Most significant to the development of our global society, is the overwhelming effectiveness of self-reflection, self-monitoring, and the concepts of transformational learning (Palloff & Pratt, 2007). This seems to fall in line with Goleman’s emotional intelligence (O’Neil, 1996), and Pink’s (2005) (video)arguments for the coming of a conceptual age. However, it does seem to decry connectivist (Siemens, 2008) theories in favor of constructivism or cognitivism.

Combining the above, with the reports’ call to “redesign instruction to incorporate additional learning opportunities” (U.S. Department of, 2009, p. 51), should lead to:

1. An increased focus on transformational and reflective learning
2. A stronger awareness of emotional intelligence
3. Organic course designs including (a) more learner controlled media, (b) student choice of assessment methods, (c) less traditional quizzing, and (d) combined synchronous and asynchronous methods.
4. An increase in hybrid or blended courses
5. Additional research studies focused on filling the “[lack] a coherent body of linked studies that systematically test theory-based approaches in different contexts” (U.S. Department of, 2009, p. 49).

References
Gardner, H. (2003, April 21). Multiple intelligences after 20 years. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved July 29, 2009 from [ http://www.pz.harvard.edu/PIs/HG_MI_after_20_years.pdf ]http://www.pz.harvard.edu/PIs/HG_MI_after_20_years.pdf

O'Neil, J. (1996). On emotional intelligence: A conversation with Daniel Goleman. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 6 - 11.

Pink, D. (2005, February). Wired 13.02: Revenge of the Right Brain. Wired. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from [ http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/brain.html?pg=2&topic=brain&topic_set= ]http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/brain.html?pg=2&topic=brain&topic_set=.

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educator and designers [Paper presented to ITFORUM]. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from [ http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf ]http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf

U.S. Department of education. (2009, May). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. In B. Means, Y. Toyama, R. Murphy, M. Bakia, & K. Jones (Eds.), Office of planning, evaluation, and policy development (No. ED-04-CO-0040). Retrieved June 26, 2009, from U.S. Department of Education Web site: [ http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf ]http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

If I had only known then ...

Knowing and Doing

In my relatively short time as an academic researcher, I have explored many authors’ work. To date, the most impactful has been Albert Bandura’s Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control (1997). To normal people (non-Phd candidates) I often describe it as the foundational reason most self-help books work. Bandura (1997) defines self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). A simply complex definition Bandura explains over the remaining 522 pages.

For now, you need to keep in mind what you already know and feel – your belief in your ability to accomplish a given task significantly influences the outcome.

When diffusing technology to new audiences, it is critical to know their level of belief in their ability to adopt. However, knowing that is not enough, you must do something about it. Driscoll (2005) does a wonderful job of combining Bandura's (1997) self-efficacy with Keller's ARCS (attention, relevance, confidence, satisfaction) model of motivation. This begins to close the gap between knowing your audience, and doing something about it.

If I had only known then …

Some time ago, I developed and implemented a discussion board for my faculty. Its primary purpose was to bring together a diverse faculty dispersed to several buildings as the campus had grown; losing the sense of community they once enjoyed. Additionally, it would disseminate information, allow faculty to give input on policy and procedure, discuss curriculum, and mentor each other.

The system was live for about 9 months, and never realized its potential.

If I had known about Bandura’s (1997) and Keller’s (Driscoll, 2005) theories, the results would have been different. To begin with, many faculty members believed they could not operate the system or integrate it into their daily life. They were hesitant, expressed feelings of inconvenience, and were often uninterested. While we discussed these concerns, we did not address them in the systematic and effective way the ARCS model allows.

Attention: Instructors were attentive during the training, but we did not engage their curiosity, or cerate within them Keller’s “attitude of inquiry” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 334). Their attention did not last. As Driscoll (2005) suggests, integrating more interesting problems to solve, and changing how we delivered the material would have helped.

Relevance: The system was relevant to the goal of creating more community, and providing the faculty a stronger voice - what Driscoll (2005) referred to as Keller's "ends-oriented" relevance. However, it lacked what Driscoll labeled Keller’s “means-oriented” relevance (p. 335) - or the way to achieve your goal. I think this, combined with their unfamiliarity with discussion boards, was the system’s fatal flaw. Improving instructors' familiarity with the boards was just a matter of time. Solving the means-oriented relevance would have required more focus on how a virtual community can provide strong connections.

Confidence: Many faculty members were confident in their abilities. However, for those that were not, we did make our expectations clear and provide many opportunities for them to be successful using the system – Keller’s first and second strategies for building confidence (Driscoll, 2005, p. 336). Unfortunately, we did not provide them with enough assistance outside of the training, nor did we allow them the flexibility to “control … their own learning” (p. 337). Addressing these issues would require a less structured curriculum design allowing exploration of key concepts and functionality. Additionally, establishing support hot-lines and email addresses may have provided a safety net for their confidence.

Satisfaction: We did provide sufficient feedback during and outside of the training, as instructors used the system, to generate satisfaction. However, given the other deficiencies, this did not have enough impact to sustain use.

Next time … results will be different.

Brad

References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Dirscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson. (Original work published 1995)

Motivation. Technology. Facilitation. Connection. Collaboration.

(Please explore the interactive mind map above. It represents my personal learning network. Using the buttons at the top you can zoom in and out (as will your mouse's scroll wheel), fit the entire chart to the screen, and others. You can also use your mouse to drag the map around and expand each node. Nodes with a circle at the end can be expanded. Nodes with a red arrow inside of them have a link to follow. To open the link, please click the red arrow and not the node name. Thanks!)

Networking is not new. To become the best, individuals have networked with each other and master teachers for centuries. So what is new?

1. We no longer have to move to study with masters. We can study and connect with them from our homes – with our families in the next room.
2. We can study and connect with peers and masters on our own time, and often in our own way.
3. We can study and connect with peers and masters from anywhere a mobile network signal will reach … even on top of the Mogollon Rim.
4. We can reach students in the variety of ways necessary to keep them engaged in difficult academic pursuits.
5. We can build a personal work environment tailored to our learning needs and style.

I first began reaching outside of a traditional learning network as an undergraduate. With a 2400 baud modem, and the Compuserve BBS, I began to explore social and learning networks. Without realizing it, I started a personal trend of technical exploration that continues today. Reflecting on that journey, I realize that network grew proportionately to the technology I accessed. First BBS, then PINE, eMail, AOL, ICQ, MySpace, FaceBook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and others. Now, I have them all with me, any time, on my mobile phone.

Has this changed the way I learn? I do not know yet. What I do know, is I have expedient and nearly instant access to any piece of information I need to fuel my learning. Whether it is peers, instructors, professional connections, or anything stored in the mass of the internet, when I have a question I can connect and ask just one, or practically all simultaneously.

In a post on a Walden University discussion board, Dr. Moller (2009) posits technology is an “enabler instead of a driver” of learning strategies. A fantastically hopeful comment, as it implies we have much more potential to unlock and fill. I feel the key lies in the continued growth of collaborative technologies, and the many conversations taking place about how we learn.

References
Moller, L. (2009, July 20). Course Home Page. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3470109&Survey=1&47=4198219&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Basic Instinct (sans ice pick) … (maybe)

During Howard Rheingold’s 2008 TED talk he traces a path of human development based on an inherent instinct to collaborate. Citing everything from mastodon BBQ parties to the modern economic engine, he deftly points out how our base programming may be wired to collaborate more than to dominate and defeat. While acknowledging the shrinking place of the survival-of-the-fittest, he speaks of this emergent culture of cooperative arrangements with a hopeful tone. And, I choose to believe him.

Now, there are examples of positive and negative cooperative arrangements throughout history. Some simply wanted to become king of the proverbial hill –generally for no real reason other than to prove it was possible. I imagine the populous of the world as pockets of cooperative arrangements akin to the hemispherical bubbles circling the drain after a bath. Some are countries, some are small religions, some are global industries, and some are just what is leftover. Normally, the bubbles will collide together, losing structure, and draining away with the bathwater. But, If the conditions are just right, and each bubble is strong enough to stay together, yet pliable enough to bend and merge without breaking, a single hemispheric bubble remains on top of the drain after everything else has washed away.

I like to believe that is how Rheingold sees it. If cooperative arrangements and collaboration are humankind’s basic instinct, we have a chance of not washing it all down the drain.

Of course, to reach that point we need to transform and re-educate. We need to teach as if collaboration is our first and most basic instinct. Thankfully, we have entered an era characterized by explosive growth in global communication between individuals, not just corporations and governments. Mobile phones, the semantic web, social networking, Twitter, and the promise of cloud computing increasingly support this collaboration. Constructivist theorists like D.J. Cunningham support the need for students to talk to each other, understand each other's viewpoints, and take responsibility for their own learning. Vygotsky called for strong relationships between learners, their culture, and appropriate mentors.

Rheingold calls for us all to begin and participate in the necessary “transdisciplinary discourse” to make this transformation possible. In education, that discourse must involve the _isms. What cooperative arrangements can be forged between educational theorists to create the ways of teaching necessary to foster and build a culture of collaboration?

The means exist.

The will to change must follow.

US DOE Report

In a recent conversation with an instructor, I indicated my strong feeling that students in an online environment have greater opportunity to achieve course objectives more completely than traditional face-to-face instruction. Today, the US Department of Education released an analysis of blended and online education as compared to traditional education. At face value, its key findings indicate:

1. "Learning outcomes for students who engaged in online learning exceeded those of students receiving face-to-face instruction, with an average effect size of +0.24 favoring online conditions."



2. "Instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online instruction."
   

The press release states "the studies of more recent online instruction included in this meta-analysis found that, on average, online learning, at the post-secondary level, is not just as good as but more effective than conventional face-to-face instruction."

Upon a more thorough analysis, I am certain we will find some concerns with the reported findings. As a community of practitioners it is important for us to evaluate these findings and compare them to our own research and experience.

• What does this mean for you?
• Your school?
• Your students?
• The future of online education?

The significance of the US Department of Education's support of online education is not to be overlooked. In my opinion, it is one more indication of online education's maturation and acceptance.

The full report can be found at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Matters of Perspective

I will be the first to admit my relatively novice status in the realm of educational theory and instructional design. And, of course, the more I learn, the less I know. However, reading the 2007 posts by Bill Kerr and Karl Kapp regarding learning theory was refreshing, comforting, and encouraging.

• Refreshing because their discussion is accessible, well structured, and less academic;
• Comforting because the struggle over the _ism gap is nothing new … we are still talking about it, and likely will be for years. It’s like an MC Escher sketch. From one point of view, the theories are miles apart; from another they support and build upon each other;
• Encouraging because they reinforce my own thoughts about the role of _isms in education.

I find the tension that fills the space between cognitivism and behaviorism buzzing with possibility. And I certainly don’t think behaviorism has been left on the side of an old country road, while the rest of the _isms cruise merrily along our beloved internet super highway. To continue the metaphor, I believe they all belong in a Prius, zipping down the HOV lane. Or, as Karl Kapp writes:

“What we need to is take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners.”
- Out and About: Discussion on Educational Schools of Thought

Now, to answer Bill’s question from the preamble to his post: “What do we do about these _isms?”

We need them.

Most importantly, as Bill writes and like Kuhn’s (1996) thoughts on scientific paradigm shift, we have to discuss where we are, where we have been, and where we need to go in order to create necessary revolution. To do that efficiently, we must symbolize, label, and define. We must stake our tents, raise our flags, and fling our arrows until the dust clears and a new camp has formed.

As Huett, Moller, Foshay, and Coleman write:

"It is incumbent upon all professionals with a commitment to the potential of technology in education and training, no matter what their theoretical or ideological bent, to think outside the box, to collaborate and to advance the common vision"

References
Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The university of Chicago press. (Original work published 1962)
Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Coleman, C (2008) The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web. TechTrends 52(5), 63-67.

This I believe … the learning version …

(Not related or to be confused with the fantastic "This I Believe" essay and radio series.)

As I return to the blog-o-sphere from my hiatus, it seemed appropriate to begin with where I stand (or sit) on learning, theory, and educational technology. In the past year, I have spent time studying Illich, Vygotsky, Bandura, Selman, Skinner, and Siemens. What I find interesting, is the interrelated threads woven throughout the broad spectrum of these theorists. However, before I talk about them, I want to talk about my beliefs. I have neither the years of experience nor the degrees of the aforementioned theorists. I have some experience (about 10 years), a couple of diplomas, and my opinions. So, without further a due, this I believe. I believe …

• People learn best when they are interested in what they study.
  
• People learn best when they have dedicated time to study, to explore, to create, and to share.
  
• People learn best when they share their learning with others who are interested.
  
• People learn best when they leave their egos aside and relish in exposing their ignorance.
  
• People learn best when they can access information in just the way they want to.
  
• People learn best when they have the freedom to express their knowing in many different ways.
  
• People learn best when they leave their comfort zone, and are appropriately challenged.
  
• People learn best when they have someone who cares if they are learning.
  
• People learn best when they can laugh.
  

So … what does that, have to do with the theorists, learning theory, and educational technology (an area of personal exploration and study)? For someone unconcerned with the inner-sanctum of education and learning (otherwise known as academia), a list similar to the one above may be all they need, or likely care about, regarding learning theory. However, for those of us attempting to decipher how to improve the world through researching and implementing a better understanding of how and why people learn, the above list feels nice but is not sufficient. We want and need more.

So, we create detailed learning theories full of "constructs linking observed changes in performance with what is thought to bring about those changes" (Driscoll, 2005, p. 9). The four biggest players on the scene are, of course, behaviorism, constructivism, cognitivism, and connectivism. (I am not going to explore these here, but if you would like to read check out this site, and this one.)

For educational technology use, learning theories still act as a guide for instructors, administrators, and course designers. Driscoll's (2005) three basic components (results, means, and inputs) can all be utilized; however, they inherit a new specificity. The following are built on what she writes in Psychology of Learning for Instruction (p. 9):

• Results: How are the changes in performance explained by the theory related to educational technology?
  
• Means: Does educational technology facilitate the processes through which the results are created?
  
• Inputs: Can educational technology activate the required processes?
  

Correctly adopted, learning theories help steer faculty members and administrators toward the effective use of educational technology for content delivery, assessment, and feedback.

References
Dirscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson. (Original work published 1995)

Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educator and designers [Paper presented to ITFORUM]. Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http:/​/​it.coe.uga.edu/​itforum/​Paper105/​Siemens.pdf

Mobile Learning Video

The video below has been completed in partial fulfillment of EDUC8842 at Walden University. It is purely hypothetical, although the keynote speaker is not. I hope you enjoy and welcome any feedback you may have.

Click here for Reference List

PS: Make sure you stay through the credits!

Dynamic Educational Technology: Are we there yet?

This chart represents some of the technologies used in distance education. As originally referenced in my post on collaboration, Tony Karrer has posted a link to an extensive mind-map of these tools. While that mind-map is expansive, in an unpublished article Dr. Moller (2008) adds a continuum of interactivity to conceptualize these technologies' use. This continuum ranges from static to dynamic, and is the foundation for the attached chart's segmentation. This continuum can be a mirror, reflecting your philosophy of interaction in distance education.

Where are colleges, administrators, department chairs, instructional designers, faculty members, and students reflected along this path? Ideally, each member of any particular distance education program would show relatively close to one another – with innovators closer to the dynamic end of the scale, but not grossly ahead of the others. That pattern would reflect consistency amongst all stakeholders, and represent a system listening to and meeting all of their needs.

My philosophy lies between the middle-ground and dynamic implementations of technology. As a consistent early adopter (Rogers, 2003), I have always sought to lead technology adoption. Even so, I have consistently been mindful of the appropriateness of each technology adopted, never forcing implementation where it was not warranted or supported. As an educator, I fully support the use of middle-ground technologies to reduce students' feelings of isolation, enhance interactivity, build community, improve their construction of learning, and solidify their informational literacy.

Moving further toward the dynamic end of Dr. Moller's (2008) continuum will require a pioneering spirit that perseveres forward through the risks of discovery. Colleges will need to balance the technical difficulties of early adoption with the learning needs of their students and the cost of implementation. Well-structured, on-going, and challenging faculty development must be in place to ensure the appropriate use of new technologies. Administrators must consistently seek students' opinions and input, and sincerely evaluate and appropriately implement those ideas.

As Dr. Moller (2008) aptly states, "without exploring, thinking, analyzing, creating, and experimenting, powerful, higher-level learning is not possible. Some of the best breakthroughs in history, and in our personal lives, have come from taking a chance to solve a problem" (p. 2). As educators responsible for students' lives, learning, and tax dollars, we must temper risk with the reality of achievable and demonstrable learning outcomes. Those who mange this, will transform eLearning's current adolescence into a mature paradigm … leading the world into a new era of learning, collaboration, and community.

References

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1962)

Moller, L. (2008). Static and Dynamic Technological Tools. [Unpublished Paper].

Engaging Learners with New Strategic Tools

It is undeniable that online learning holds vast potential to improve learning and student engagement for some, and isolate and disillusion others. As such, it carries the potential to earn or lose profit for companies who make the associated hardware and software. Finally, it also encourages entrepreneurs with altruistic intent to develop open-source solutions distributed under free usage licenses.

In his recent post about collaboration, Tony Karrer shared a phenomenal collaborative mind-map of some of these available tools. This map, while impressive in its breadth, is still not a conclusive examination of all the technologies available to students, teachers, and instructional designers.

On the downside, the resulting cacophony of technology solutions is nothing short of overwhelming. Without a clear understanding of students' levels of information literacy and technology awareness, an instructional designer or school administrator may spend countless hours building courses that employ technologies their students will never use. The resulting student participation will be intermittent and unsatisfactory for both the facilitator and the student.

On the upside, the plethora of technology solutions means an instructional designer or school administrator who has an understanding of what their students and instructors use regularly, will most likely find an appropriate solution – one that requires an extension of their existing communication habits, instead of significant revision.

Articles and essays in scholarly journals, blogs, and traditional news media, as well as presentations in conferences around the world, support the use of technologies to enhance the online learning experience. Of particular importance is:

• George Siemens' (2008) work with Connectivism, learning networks, and curatorial teaching,
  
• Garrison, Anderson, and Archer's work on the "community of inquiry" model of learning, as cited in Anderson (2008),
  
• and Durrington, Berryhill, and Swafford's (2006) examination of student interaction in an online environment.
  

It is in the spirit of a curatorial teacher – one who is "an expert learner. … [and] creates spaces in which knowledge can be created, explored, and connected" (Siemens, 2008, p. 17) – that the following list of tools is presented. These tools, presented in both a textual and graphical format, will fill the intersection between student technology usage, the community of inquiry model (teaching presence, social presence, cognitive presence(Anderson, 2008, p. 344)), and Durrington et. al.'s suggestions for enhanced student interactivity.

Social Presence

Skype – Synchronous communication
FirstClass – Asynchronous Class Café inside of First Class LMS

Cognitive Presence

FirstClass – Asynchronous, Instructor-Mediated, Content Delivery and construction, Learning Environment Class Learning Conferences
FirstClass – Asynchronous, Student-Moderated, Learning Environment, Problem-Based Learning, content construction (groups of 3-4 students)
Wikispaces - Asynchronous, Student Moderated, Instructor Mediated, Learning Environment, Problem Based Learning, content construction (groups of 3-4 students)
Internet – Instructor Mediated, Content Delivery, Problem Based Learning
Adobe Connect – Synchronous, instructor mediated, presentation and learning environment with shared whiteboard, chat, notes, multimedia support, screen sharing, polling, audio and video.

Teaching Presence

FirstClass – Instructor Mediated, Asynchronous Learning Conferences
WikiSpaces – instructor Mediated, Asynchronous Individualized and group feedback on assignments
Adobe Connect - Instructor Mediated, Synchronous individualized and group feedback
Skype – Synchronous individualized mentorship and guidance

References

Anderson, T. (Ed.) (2008). The Theory And Practice Of Online Learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies For Enhancing Student Interactivity In An Online Environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190−193.

Karrer, T. (2008, December 2). Collaboration Tools: eLearning Technology. Message December 23, 2008, posted to eLearning Technology: http://elearningtech.blogspot.com/2008/12/collaboration-tools.html

From Knowledgable to Knowledge-able

This online essay, From Knowledgable to Knowledge-able: Learning in New Media Environments by Michael Wesch from Kansas State University, sums up all of my current feelings on education and online learning. From his opening paragraph through his closing arguments he captures the essence of the pedagogical transition in which we all find ourselves - regardless of our personal desire for it to be taking place.

We should all be as encouraged by this time of transition and embrace the changes upon us with all our passion. If you are reading my blog, it is a safe assumption you have something to do with educational technology and eLearning. Please read this article.

I leave you with his closing paragraph:

The beauty of the current moment is that new media has thrown all of us as educators into just this kind of question-asking, bias-busting, assumption-exposing environment. There are no easy answers, but we can at least be thankful for the questions that drive us on.

Collaborative Assessment Challenges

Assessment of student learning has not always been in the educational hot-seat. As Bass and Eynon (2009) eloquently point out in the first part of their three part online essay, "education at all levels has largely taken on faith that if teachers teach, students will learn--what could be seen as a remarkable, real-life version of 'If you build it, they will come'" (¶ 6). In response to taxpayer demands for accountability, government agencies and accrediting bodies are fanning the assessment flames – as they should. As a parent, and a professional who has seen the results of weak assessment practices, I fully support the increased attention. As an educator, and eLearning designer, I also welcome the attention. However, it raises some challenges for one of our most beloved activities – collaborative learning communities. In all its various forms, its assessment can be tricky. How should individual or team participation be assessed? How does the varying student skill levels change an instructor's ability to employ fair and equitable learning assessments? What if a student does not want to collaborate with their particular community? What should her peers do? What should her instructor do? In part three of their essay, Bass and Eynon (2009) confirm that "new digital environments tend to unleash and make visible dimensions of student learning that exceed the bounds of our traditional schema in higher education, problematizing our traditional trajectories of development and challenging, if not confounding, our abilities to assess. (¶ 28)"

Thankfully, many educators and researchers are dedicating countless hours to solving these problems. Of course, a well-written rubric linking student participation to course and program objectives is the foundation of any good assessment. However, beyond that, George Siemens (2008), in a recent production made in conjunction with Walden University, presents three ways of assessing a learning community. They are (a) peer assessment; (b) community assessment, sub-divided into the open educational community as well as professional list-serves; and (c) the instructor or educator (Siemens, 2008). Bass and Eynon (2009) support Siemen's second point, emphasizing a "class as a whole looks outside its boundaries to external audiences and parallel communities for progressive markers of learning and assessment" ( ¶). Palloff and Pratt (2005) further suggest that student self-assessment and reflection can help untangle this challenge (p. 42). Finally, not to be missed is their citation of Morgan and O'Reilly's (1999) six critical of assessment:

1. a clear rationale and consistent pedagogical approach;
   
2. explicit values, aims, criteria, and standards;
   
3. authentic and holistic tasks;
   
4. a facilitative degree of structure;
   
5. sufficient and timely formative assessment;
   
6. and awareness of the learning context and perceptions (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, p. 42)
   

Of course, the above methods can equally apply to assessing a student's participation, knowledge demonstrated, or tasks completed. But, what about those varying skill and knowledge levels, do they impact an instructor's ability to employ the above methods in a fair and equitable manner? I think they could. Nevertheless, I think an instructor can mitigate the impact by using Palloff and Pratt's (2005) five categories of instructor involvement: set the stage, create the environment, model the process, guide the process, and evaluate the process (pp. 20 – 24). When combined with a class or team charter, clear rubrics, cultural awareness, and effective assessment practices, an instructor should be able to reasonably maintain fair and equitable assessments in most all situations.

"Most" you ask? What happens when a student does not want to collaborate with their learning community? What should the other members of the learning community do? What should the instructor do?

In these cases, a team or course charter becomes critical. This charter may detail (a) how students will interact, (b) which roles each student will play, (c) deadlines, (d) conflict resolution, and (e) how students will be held accountable (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, p. 27-28). With this sort of document in place, and the ramifications of non-participation clear, students are free to encourage and support each other in the learning process.

When a team is unable to successfully resolve a conflict or motivate team members to participate completely, the instructor can get involved. The instructor's role is then to guide and facilitate resolution and the rebuilding of the learning community. Here again, Palloff and Pratt (2005) offer five items to help facilitate participation by a student: set the stage for collaboration, don't encourage over- or under-participation, address technical difficulties swiftly, provide instruction on conflict management and resolution, and maximize participation through group composition (p. 34). If necessary, the circumstance may necessitate re-evaluating the assessment plan. However, if the course has been well designed, and the rubrics, assignments, and assessments are appropriately tied to course and program objectives, assessment plans should not need to be changed. Instead, they will appropriately discover a student's academic weakness so they can be corrected with the help of instructors or tutors.

References

Bass, R., & Eynon, B. (2009, January 7). Capturing the visible evidence of invisible learning. Message January 7, 2009, posted to Academic Commons Web site: http:/​/​www.academiccommons.org/​commons/​essay/​capturing-visible-evidence-invisible-learning

Bass, R., & Eynon, B. (2009, January 7). Capturing the visible evidence of invisible learning (Part III). Message January 7, 2009, posted to Academic Commons Web site: http:/​/​www.academiccommons.org/​commons/​essay/​capturing-visible-evidence-invisible-learning-3

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating Online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Siemens, G. (Speaker). (2008). Assessment of collaborative learning (Transcript of Video Program). Laureate Education, Inc.

US Deptartment of Ed - Distance Ed. Report

The US Department of Education has released its fourth study on distance education. This is particularly significant because their last release was in 2002 ... and a lot has changed since then. To accommodate those changes they made two changes to their definition of distance education. First, they removed the restriction "off-site," noting that many students may go to campus to access their course. Second, they included courses indicated by the college or university as hybrid or blended. Below are two quotes from their summary of findings that are most interesting to me as indicators that eLearning is standing on its own.

"During the 2006–07 academic year, two-thirds (66 percent) of 2-year and 4-year Title IV degreegranting postsecondary institutions reported offering online, hybrid/blended online, or other distance education courses for any level or audience (table 1). Sixty-five percent of the institutions reported college-level credit-granting distance education courses, and 23 percent of the institutions reported noncredit distance education courses."

"The most common factors cited as affecting distance education decisions to a major extent were meeting student demand for flexible schedules (68 percent), providing access to college for students who would otherwise not have access (67 percent), making more courses available (46 percent), and seeking to increase student enrollment (45 percent) (table 12). These same factors were rated as affecting distance education decisions to a moderate or major extent in 82 percent to 92 percent of the 2-year and 4-year institutions that offered college-level credit-granting distance education courses (table 13). The proportion of institutions that rated various other factors as affecting distance education to a moderate or major extent ranged from 6 percent for “other factors” to 63 percent for maximizing the use of existing college facilities."

The full report is here.

Video Outline for Keynote Introduction

This video will introduce the keynote speaker at a national conference on Mobile Learning. The keynote address will open the conference and set the stage for the week's activities. As such, it will first integrate elements from the theme for each of the five days (history, hardware, software, pedagogy, and case studies), and then introduce the speaker. Following is a brief treatment of the (a) design concepts (graphics, movement, audio), (b) content outline, and (c) reference materials.

Concepts

Graphics: clean, simple, web 2.0 inspired, balanced in thirds, 16:9, some retro-influences, saturate colors with diffuse overlays, sans-serif font that relays academic rigor but is inspired by net-generation intensity and freedom.

Movement: quick but precise, soft-edged transitions, fast-in and fast-out, syncopated

Audio: techno with variable tempo and feeling, Probably "Keep Hope Alive" by The Crystal Method

Content

1. Visual retelling of the evolution and history of learning
   
   1. Socrates through computer mediated visuals
      
   2. Resolution of this progression and associated movement to mobile Learning
      
2. Mobile Learning title sequence
   
   1. "Mobile learning allows individuals to connect with just the right content, using just the right technology, at just the right time" – (Hutchinson, Tin, & Cay, 2004/​2008, p. 203)
      
3. Day 1 – History
   
   1. Definitions
      
      1. "The use, both synchronously and asynchronously, of mobile communication technology (MCT) to achieve a learning task or outcome." (Ferysen, 2004, p. 73)
         
      2. "The delivery of electronic learning (e-learning) materials on mobile devices." (Ally , 2005, p. 5)
         
      3. "Any activity that allows individuals to be more productive when consuming, interacting with, or creating information, mediated through a compact digital portable device that the individual carries on a regular basis, has reliable connectivity, and fits in a pocket or purse." (Wexler et al., 2008, p. 7)
         
   2. Growth and development/innovation
      
      1. Cell Phone usage statistics
         
      2. Reports from eLearning Guild
         
      3. Corporate backing
         
4. Day 2 - Hardware
   
   1. Cellular Phones iPhone, BlackBerry, WM6
      
   2. PDA
      
   3. UMPC
      
5. Day 3 – Software
   
   1. RedHalo
      
   2. OnPoint Digital
      
   3. Study Wiz
      
   4. Other
      
6. Day 4 – Pedagogy
   
   1. Benefit and possibility
      
   2. Net Gen relationship
      
7. Day 5 - Case studies
   
   1. Universities, support programs, etc…
      
8. Introduction of Keynote Speaker
   
   1. Plausible history of accomplishments (academic, professional, and tech)
      
   2. Awards and recognitions
      

Initial References

Ally, M. (2005). Using learning theories to design instruction for mobile learning devices. In J. Attewell & C. Savill-Smith (Eds.), Mobile learning anytime everywhere: A book of papers from MLEARN 2004 (pp. 5-8). London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.

Anderson, T. (2008). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, Canada: AU Press. (Original work published 2004)

Attewell, J., & Savill-Smith, C. (Eds.). (2005). Mobile learning anytime everywhere: A book of papers from MLEARN 2004. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.

Attewell, J., & Savill-Smith, C. (Eds.). (2004). Learning with mobile devices: Research and development. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.

Baber, C., Sharples, M., Vavoula, G., & Glew, P. (2004). A 'learning space' model to examine the suitability of different technologies for mobile learning. In J. Attewell & C. Savill-Smith (Eds.), Learning with mobile devices: Research and development (pp. 21-26). London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.

Freysen, J. (2004). M-learning: An educational perspective. In J. Attewell & C. Savill-Smith (Eds.), Mobile learning anytime everywhere: A book of papers from MLEARN 2004 (pp. 73-75). London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.

Hutchinson, M., Tin, T., & Cay, Y. (2008). "In-your-pocket" and "on-the-fly:" Meeting the needs of today's new generation of online learners with mobile learning technology. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 201-219). Edmonton, Canada: AU Press. (Original work published 2004)

Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2007, September). Motivation and mobile devices: exploring the role of appropriation and coping strategies. ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 15(3), 247-258. Retrieved December 14, 2008, doi:10.1080/09687760701673675

Keegan, D., & Fern Univ., H. (2002, November 1). The Future of Learning: From eLearning to mLearning. . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472435) Retrieved January 1, 2009, from ERIC database.

Kurubacak, G. (2007, November). Identifying Research Priorities and Needs in Mobile Learning Technologies for Distance Education: A Delphi Study. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 19(3), 216-227. Retrieved December 14, 2008, from Education Research Complete database.

Milne, A. J. (2007). Entering the interaction age: Implementing a future vision for campus learning spaces today. Educause Review, 42(1), 12-31. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from Educause Review Web site: http:/​/​connect.educause.edu/​Library/​EDUCAUSE+Review/​EnteringtheInteractionAge/​40680

Motlik, S. (2008, July). 63. Mobile Learning in Developing Nations. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 9(2), 1-7. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.

Oblinger, D. G., & Oblinger, J. L. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the net generation. Washington, DC: Educause.

Shih, Y., & Mills, D. (2007, July). Setting the New Standard with Mobile Computing in Online Learning. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 8(2), 1-16. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from Education Research Complete database.

Wexler, S., Brown, J., Metcalf, D., Rogers, D., & Wagner, E. (2008). Mobile Learning: what it is, why it matters, and how to incorporate it into your learning strategy. In 360 Report (The eLearning Guild). Santa Rosa, CA: The eLearning Guild.