There is a danger in technology-mediated teaching of separation between the learners and the community in which they are learning. The distance learners feel in blended or distributed learning has potential to negatively affect the overall educational experience. Balancing the three elements, Social Presence, Cognitive Presence, and Teaching Presence, is critical in establishing a Community of Inquiry (Garrison et al, 2000) and creating an ideal educational experience for learners. A real world example demonstrating the effects of perceived imbalance of these elements recently occurred within the discussion forum of this EdTech course before we explored the concepts of this module. One of the learners commented on her perception that a social element was missing from the online discussions. Most discussion threads focused heavily on cognitive presence and lacked the social interaction required to enhance learning beyond “intersecting monologues”.
Enter the Teaching Presence and his ability to recognize the imbalance between Cognitive and Social Presence and its negative affect on Supporting Discourse. He was able to reset the climate by recommending a different approach to responding to discussion threads. The content selection was relevant to the learning outcomes, but interacting with it became less about reading to answer specific questions and more about discussing application of concepts to the learners’ contexts. The focus shifted from reiterating content to exploring its meaning. These concepts are not exclusive to Community of Inquiry. They are also reflected in recommendations made by Transactional Distance Theory (Murphy & Rodriguez-Manaznares, 2008) in creating ideal blended or distributed learning environments. Physical and perceived distances between learners, their peers, and instructors affect the learning experience. Bringing it back to technology, although physical distance cannot be controlled, it is important to consider how technology impacts the balance between interaction, autonomy, and structure. Does technology enhance or detract from the overall educational experience? Does the technology selected support the learning outcomes? How will technology be used to mitigate the potential distances learners may experience? All important considerations when selecting technology for teaching and training. Module 4: Driving Engagement
0 Comments
The first time I opened Doodle was to select a meeting time in a poll created by the instructor of the EdTech course. My initial thought was, “Is this ALL it does?” I wasn’t even sure it warranted an EdTech Exploration. Over the course of this online course, I have recognized Doodle’s infinite value.
Taken directly from the Doodle Support Center, “Doodle is an online scheduling tool that can be used quickly and easily to find a date and time to meet with multiple people. First you suggest dates and times for your event participants to choose from, then Doodle creates a polling calendar that can be sent to participants for feedback. As each participant selects the dates and times from the polling calendar that he or she is free, Doodle aggregates the responses and tells you which option works best for everyone.” In short, “herding cats gets 2x faster”. Part of Doodle’s value is in its simplicity. A (free) account is required to create a poll, but not required to participate. Respondents can be invited directly through email or using a link to the poll. Further, polls are not limited to scheduling events. Polls can also be used to vote on any number of decisions. Our team used it to select a topic for our group project and then set up a time for a synchronous meeting online. What more is there to say? Doodle events are easy to set up in four simple steps. There are not a lot of options for formatting or rule enforcement (e.g. if the poll requests selection of only 3 of 8 options, there is nothing stopping the respondents from selecting all 8 options), however that doesn’t seem to be a significant detractor. Most importantly, Doodle eliminates the need for multiple emails and discussion threads to negotiate meeting times and topics. That alone makes the tool invaluable. Gamification meets microlearning in DuoLingo’s approach to online language learning. DuoLingo is language-learning platform that includes a language-learning website and app, as well as a digital language proficiency assessment exam. To explore the tool, I signed up for a free account and reviewed the available languages available; currently, there are 68. I selected Spanish. Microlearning - Lessons are short, approximately 10 minutes each, and include reading, listening and speaking activities. Experience points are earned for each lesson and the app encourages the user to earn a certain number of experience points a day, in line with the philosophy that language should be practiced daily. Emails reminders are sent to encourage logging in and completing activities each day. Gamification - The game features of DuoLingo lessons make them fun and approachable. As with many successful online games, learners are rewarded for their progress. Streaks are recorded and posted; “badges” are colourized when a level is complete; lingots, DuoLingo currency, are earned and can be spent in the Lingot Store to purchase Power-ups and Practice options. For three days, I walked around telling friends and family “he/she/they drink(s) milk” and “eat(s) bananas” before I broke my streak. Even in 10 minute increments, there was an element missing to motivate me to practice instead of doing that other thing I had to do that seemed more important at the time. In fairness, I was using a laptop. I think the accessibility of downloading the app on a phone would help... maybe. The bite-sized lessons will mean sticking with it for the long haul. As with any language learning I’ve encountered, other than my first language, the learner begins at the very beginning; with the constructs of the language. Maybe starting with something that allows learners to use the language in a meaningful way immediately, and then working on conjugating the verb “to eat” would be more motivating? I’m thinking something that mimics first language learning. I could speak long before I learned what the elements of the language were. From the perspective of an adult learner, DuoLingo does a good job of engaging learners. Keeping them engaged might require something more. I’ll be interested to find out more about the language learning bots currently under development. Conversational learning might be the missing element. In the process of evaluating appropriate EdTech tools to enhance learning, the SECTIONS and CSAM models provide questions to answer regarding potential technology/media. Both tools are designed to assist educators in determining how well a tool meets priorities in relation to learning outcomes. In an exercise evaluating appropriate educational technology for learning enhancement, these models were used to evaluate media that could enable learners to continue their learning journeys beyond a classroom environment, and into their personal contexts, while having access to strategy collaboration and social support that would help them meet their personal needs. (See PDF document in RESOURCES) Considering these outcomes, mobile technology and social media were evaluated first, to determine which technology would be better suited to fulfill an activity that would see learners applying knowledge gained in the classroom to their own contexts in situation; comparing food labels in the grocery store to make selections based in personal needs. Working through a SECTIONS analysis, the comparison of mobile technology to social media resulted in a virtual “tie”. Both seemed to provide platforms that would allow learners to apply classroom learning in context as well as an ability to collaborate with peers. The additional component of providing a method for learners to interact with peers for strategy collaboration and feedback initially favoured social media. However, the consideration emerged; how will learning be enforced within context? Further analysis was required to be able to make a recommendation. It became important to review more closely the learning activity chosen to meet the objective: The learner will be able to apply label reading knowledge to personal needs when selecting products to purchase at the grocery store. With the activity in mind, a CSAM analysis was completed to further analyze the technologies. In order to perform the activity in context, learners would require a portable platform. Social media can be accessed in ways that do not necessarily put the learner in context (eg. Desktops/laptops), while mobile technology can be accessed anywhere. Based on its unique affordance of portability, mobile technology emerged as the recommended technology. Once a technology was selected, tools related to that technology were analyzed to determine an appropriate learning resource. Using SECTIONS, QR codes and nQuire-it Missions were evaluated as mobile learning resources to meet the outcomes. Quick response (QR) codes are a form a scannable technology. Learners would use their mobile devices to scan a code, opening a link to a learning resource. While QR codes may fulfill the need to access resources in context, they do not directly allow the learner to collect information during an activity and share the results with peers for feedback. However, the resources QR codes link to could provide these features. Two consideration emerged from the QR code analysis: What would the landing resource(s) be for the QR code links? and How would the QR codes be placed for access by the learners in situation? The QR codes themselves are not the end media, but a means to accessing it. Further preparation would be required to provide another form of media necessary for learners to record their activity results and share them with peers. Quire-it Missions encourage learners to explore answers to questions posed in the form of a mission. Each missions presents an activity that allows the learner to find answers in context of the enquiry presented. The SECTIONS analysis helped determine that an nQuire-it mission is able to fulfill all of the requirements for competing the target learning activity. Learners are able to record their completion of an activity in situation, upload the information to the nQuire-it mission and make comments, thereby sharing their experience with peers/the instructor and receive feedback. Recommending nQuire-it Missions brings one hesitation. "Spot-it" missions ask learners to capture information and upload it to the mission. In that sense, nQuire-it is not the base media used to fulfill the outcome of the activity, a digital camera or other recording device would be. If that is the case, any social media tool that allows a user to upload an image, make a comment, and receive feedback might satisfy the requirement. However, the pedagogy of providing a bite-sized section of learning, allowing manageable transfer of learning to personal context, enforces not only the recommendation of mobile technology, but also that of an nQuire-it mission to enhance learning for the selected activity. In an ongoing learning activity, I am working toward recommending an EdTech tool that will enhance the learning experience for a specific course or unit of study. As described in a previous post, the course I would like to enhance is currently run in a one-day, face-to-face classroom setting. Organizational policy strictly limits technology available in the classroom (i.e. no Wi-Fi with restrictions on websites visited through the corporate network) so activities in the course are completed within those limitations (BYOD is not an option at this time). This has become an important factor in selecting technology.
The Collaborative Situated Active mLearning (CSAM) (Power, 2013) model is a framework that can be used to evaluate media selection for mobile learning activities. Working through the CSAM model, has highlighted areas for technology enhancement. Here is an overview of the face-to-face classroom before enhancement with technology: Collaborative – There is both learner-learner and learner-instructor collaboration. Content is delivered and discussed in multiple formats along with large and small group sharing of personal experiences and strategies. Situated – Learners have an opportunity to explore the content, in their own contexts, on a limited basis. To truly extend the learning in situation requires practicing the concepts outside the classroom. Active – Although in class activities allow learners to use the information they have learned, it is limited to the classroom context and activities are not fully able to meet each individual’s goals. Mobile – Not available in the classroom setting, however, may be required to enable the learner is to actively apply the information in situation. Learners need a way to extend what they learn in the classroom into their own contexts outside. One consideration is there is no classroom follow up after outside activities are completed. Therefore, the selected media will also need to provide a method for collaboration outside the classroom to close the collaborative loop. In an upcoming exercise, CSAM will be used to evaluate media selection for specific course outcomes. The results will be documented in a future blog post. Module 3: Critiquing and Evaluating Educational Technology As a framework, SECTIONS offers comprehensive categories to consider when selecting media; a foundation to facilitate the process. Understanding that “media selection does not happen in a vacuum” (Bates, pg 309), the questions within each category are meant to be a guideline used in conjunction with the course development framework.
Before answering the SECTIONS questions, some groundwork will already have been done by answering initial questions about teaching and learning:
Using an inductive approach, answers to the SECTIONS questions will support the initial selection or highlight gaps in meeting requirements. It is important to keep an open mind to the possibility that the initial media selection may not meet the requirements. With experience, it will become easier to intuitively make initial selections and recognize which questions are not applicable to the situation (or if others may need to be added). In an upcoming exercise, SECTIONS will be used to evaluate media selection for specific course outcomes. The results will be documented in future blog post. Module 3: Critiquing and Evaluating Educational Technology After reviewing the affordances of media in educational technology, it is time to apply the concepts to an existing course or unit of study that could be enhanced with educational technology. As previously discussed, selection of potential technology and media begins with learner outcomes and needs.
The course I've chosen for enhancement is offered in a one-day classroom session, but the content will be applied within the learners’ personal contexts outside of the classroom. Organizational policy limits technology within the classroom setting and the one-day format makes meeting each learner’s specific learning needs challenging. At the same time, there are valuable affordances provided by face-to-face delivery that preclude eliminating classroom delivery entirely. Therefore, outcomes to address with the enhancement of technology include facilitating a way for the learners to continue their learning journeys beyond the classroom, and into their own contexts, while having access to strategy collaboration and social support that would help them meet their personal needs. The promotion of lifelong learning and organizational considerations are steering the use of technology outside the classroom. For that reason, mobile learning and social media are the leading technologies I'll explore to enhance learning within the course. I participated in my first TweetChat today. I'll admit I was nervous, and considered following the chat without comment just to see how it worked. However, once I introduced myself, I realized I was "all in". TweetChats are live discussion events on Twitter. Tweets are collected as a conversation between participants using a common hashtag (#). There are a number of TweetChats occurring each day, many of which can be found in this Google calendar. The one in which I participated was #iolchat (Inside Online Learning) hosted by @CenterOnlineEd. After I figured out the protocol of including the answer number (A#) and the discussion hashtag, things moved along well. Today's topic was grade inflation in higher ed. I wasn't sure I'd have much to offer, but soon learned that questions are welcomed as much as answers and there are no "answers" as much as perspectives and discussion points. There was an added element in coming up with a meaningful response in 140 characters or less, and I realized I have some room to learn Twitter lingo. I'm sure there is also an art form to following the threads within threads that I have not yet mastered. Sixty minutes flew by! As I find myself scanning the calendar to find another TweetChat to join, I'm also considering how TweetChats can be used for teaching and training. Instructor - Learner, Learner - Learner, Organization - Employees, etc. Tweet! I signed off my last post with the question: “How can technology selection be made based on pedagogy when pedagogy is affected by technology?”
Bates (2015, Chapter 7) discusses three core elements to consider when deciding what media to use. How should the content be represented? Different symbol systems convey different information about the same content. What we know about something comes from multiple channels. Bates uses heat as an example. We can touch it, know what temperature it is, read about it, and see its effects. So, what do we want the learner to know about the content? How should the content be structured? Should it be linear/sequential (e.g. progressive logic structure) or is there an inter-relationship between content (e.g. multiple variables happening simultaneously or branching/alternative routes). What is the intended skill to be developed? Referring to Bloom’s revised taxonomy, where does it fall between remembering and creating? In short, the specific affordances of media types provide different ways to represent and structure content as well as develop different skill levels. “Thus a first step is to identify learning objectives or outcomes, in terms of both content and skills, while being aware that the use of some media may result in new possibilities in terms of learning outcomes.” (Bates, pg. 229) The answer to my question about: It’s an iterative process. Begin by matching media to the learning outcomes and continue to explore potential learning outcomes based on the affordances offered by the media. Module 2: Bringing the Right Mix: Choosing the Right Tool As I explore the pedagogical differences between various forms of media, I am also becoming aware of a number of current educational trends. Examples include: adaptive learning, flipped classrooms, makerspaces, mobile learning, etc. Each offers different methods of delivery in and out of the classroom, and they all use media/technology to facilitate learning in a different way than traditional methods.
There also seems to be a general understanding that learning outcomes should drive the evaluation and selection of media and technology (i.e. don’t use media for the sake of using the latest new thing). However, considering these trends, and how they have the capability of enhancing the learning process, I am beginning to wonder if the availability of technology, and its different affordances through media, is actually changing learning outcomes. It seems that different outcomes would be available depending on the media selected. How can media be selected based on pedagogy if pedagogy is affected by media? Module 2: Bringing the Right Mix: Choosing the Right Tool |
What's this about?Documenting my exploration of Ed Tech and how it applies to the field of Adult Education. These are my Ang-ventures. ...see more Archives
April 2017
Categories |