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.