Category: Distributed and Open Learning (page 1 of 1)

During the last online class in a breakout session I had a chance to voice my frustration that I felt like there was pressure to accept the concept of openness wholeheartedly – a position I am not convinced of taking.  I stated that open education was not my bandwagon, perhaps because I have been teaching for over twenty years and I am set in my ways, or perhaps (also because I have been teaching for quite some time) I am skeptical of new fads and think critically and patiently about ideas and concepts before devoting significant time, attention and emotion to them.

When I began reading When inclusion excludes: a counter narrative of open online education I was relieved and thankful to read a scholarly piece that reflected my thinking on the subject of openness. I have struggled with feeling pressure to accept the ideology of openness as a political statement, belief or philosophical foundation for my teaching practice.  And quite frankly, I don’t accept the ideology of openness without significant skepticism. In my experience, there is very little black and white and openness is no exception.

Although the article is quite philosophical and wordy (but what scholarly article isn’t?) I found it beneficial to read some thoughtful opposition and critiquing of the open movement. It was eye-opening to listen to Haidt’s lecture and to read about the battle between social justice and truth, and inclusion versus logic. Fascinating. The inventory of social media interactional patterns and the discussion column had me laughing out loud as I imagined an argumentative and judgmental mother-in-law making those comments, or watching a cleverly written dialogue on a TV show. Very entertaining, indeed!

The next reading, “What does the Postdigital’ Mean for Education?”  also took a critical look at technology, and questioned whether technology enhances our existance and promotes social equality or perhaps it disconnects us from one another and our natural environment. After  discussing two prominent definitions of postdigital, Knox investigates the economic impacts of technology, the development of educational policy regarding technology, and technology’s impact on the environment.

My mind wandered while reading this article, considering how dependent education is on technology, whether education should become dependent on technology or if we should be deliberate in keeping education more  relational and a tool or supplement to the curriculum and the learning experience (unless, of course, you teach technology!) I have been purposeful in making sure that I can do my job in the absence of technology, as it is not always available or reliable in my school. I am once again wondering about the stakeholders (ie. google) and the economics of technology in education, and the personal rights and freedoms of both teacher and student to resist technology. Once again, I am reminded how removed the researcher can be from the practice.

Finally, I wish the reading Education before Regulation: Empowering Students to Question Their Data Privacy would give some examples of the types of information that can get student in trouble.  What specific information should we be warning students about sharing?  As an adult, I often think my life is rather uninteresting and my data of little consequence.  I don’t worry about sharing my age, gender, or even checking a box indicating range of household income.  I believe the collection of common data is important for business and allows them to meet the needs of their customers better. I don’t believe that I am specifically being targeted because of my information (the only risk I can think of is using my credit card online and the potential for fraud – for which I am completely covered by my credit card. I know this because it has happened twice in the past 5 years!) Without specific examples that I can use to warn my students the data privacy statement given in this article is likely to be of little consequence to teenagers.  And, quite frankly, to me.  You’ll need to convince me that sharing generic personal information is a bad idea in order for me to change my ways, and this article did not.

My final thoughts after this week’s readings are that I enjoy the availability of open resources, however I still value some of the ‘old’ ways of accessing information. I do not feel the need to defend or promote one over the other when both currently exist and seem to offer unique benefits and advantages.  I respect that people believe strongly in open education, and I appreciate their passion, however it just is not a passion for me. That being said, I am glad to learn more about it and I am please to be able to present and discuss this  information with my students. Finally, I am aware that data collection and sharing is a hot topic, however I need more detailed examples to either confirm that my current practices are conservative enough or whether I need to be more careful online. Then, I will be better equipped to have impactful discussions with my students.

Veletsianos, G., & Shaw, A. (2018). Scholars in an increasingly open and digital world: Imagined audiences and their impact on scholars’ online participation. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(1), 17–30. http://ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/login?url=https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2017.1305966

Straight out of the gate I’m intrigued by Veletsianos and Shaw’s abstract. They acknowledging the fact that who our audience is will have a significant influence on design and presentation, and yet when researchers publish online they have to imagine who their audience is. It would follow that who they imagine their audience to be will guide what they research, how they represent themselves, and how they present their findings, however their is often misalignment between the imagined audience and actual audiences. Especially intriguing is that research can never tell us who the imagined audiences actually are, only what the effect of imagining an audience has on the author. The research did not reveal any surprises or new information in the findings, but raised questions around intentions and actual audiences. I am curious about when blogging or posting becomes less about oneself and more about educating and motivating. It reminds me of when I started teaching and I was very aware that when I could stop thinking about myself and my actions I would truly be able to respond and interact efficiently with my learners.

Atenas, J., Havemann, L., & Priego, E. (2015). Open Data as Open Educational Resources: Towards Transversal Skills and Global Citizenship. Open Praxis, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.4.233

Love this article for its rubrics and information that are contributing to the development of a unit for data analysis and research skills.

Rohs, M., & Ganz, M. (2015). MOOCs and the Claim of Education for All: A Disillusion by Empirical Data. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2033/3527

I am frustrated by this article as it goes against my nature focusing on what the limitaions are rather than what the potential is. Making more information available online is nothing but a positive for students looking to overcome obstacles.

Couture, M. (2017, July 12). Academic Publishing at a Crossroads. University Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/academic-publishing-crossroads/

It is difficult for me to become passionate about the driving forces behind the open movement.  I am restricted (as are my influences) to my experience as a high school teacher. Right now, searching multiple spaces for information is tedious, whereas the reputable information that is included in journals is a one-stop shop for me and my students.  How is the concept of ‘open’ relevant and important for the high school educator? This article begins to answer many of the questions I have posed in this course regarding economics and alternate solutions to journal publications.

Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., & Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design. Computers & Education, 43(1–2), 17–33. http://ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/login?url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.018

Although I appreciated the summaries of learning theories, this article lost my interest very quickly.  The authors should be aware by their research that putting information in context is far more effective than presenting mass amounts of information (models in this case) without relevant context.  Specific case studies are needed to highlight the learning theories and reveal the strengths and weaknesses of the models. Perhaps I would have found this article more applicable earlier on in my career. My teaching philosophy is to be intentional in my teaching (intentional about what I hope the students will learn, which can include academic, social, emotional, or behavioural outcomes) and match the learning design process to the intended outcomes of my lesson and/or activities. This article did not convince me that mapping my learning theories to a model is time well spent.

Dabbagh, N. (2005). Pedagogical Models for E-Learning: A Theory-Based Design Framework. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 25–44. http://ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/login?url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.475.4593&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Such a useful article for my final project! Dabbagh is thorough in explaining the pedagogical models, instructional strategies, and learning technologies that form her Theory-Based Design Framework for E-learning.  Although the focus is applying these models and strategies to E-learning,they are certainly applicable to any learning experience. I will undoubtedly be revisiting this article for my final masters project, so a quick summary of educational perspectives on cognitive information processing (CIP), pedagogical models and instructional strategies are included for my future reference:

Perspectives on CIP

• Cognitive Information Processing View
• Parallel Distributed Processing View
• Situated Cognition View

These appear to progress from the gathering of knowledge with CIP view, to processing knowledge with the parallel distributed processing view, to applying knowledge in the situated cognition view.

Pedagogical models

• Open learning
• Distributed learning
• Learning communities
• Communities of practice
• Knowledge building communities

Instructional Strategies

• Authentic learning activities (problem-solving, exploration, hypothesis generation)
• Role play
• Articulation and reflection
• Collaboration and social negotiation
• Multiple perspectives
• Modeling and explaining
• Scaffolding

Dabbagh suggests that a grounded design approach is necessary for E-learning, and transformational learning can be achieved by considering how technology can support pedagogical models and instructional strategies.

Conole, G. (2018). Learning Design and Open Education. International Journal of Open Educational Resources. Retrieved from https://www.ijoer.org/learning-design-and-open-education_doi-10-18278-ijoer-1-1-6/

The focus of the article is to consider the efficacy of teachers and students perceptions of OER in actual practice.  Much like Dabbagh’s article, Conole begins by overviewing  learning theories:

• Associative learning
• Cognitive learning
• Situative learning
• Connectivisim

Innovative Pedagogies:

• Blended learning
• Computational thinking
• Experiential learning
• Embodied learning
• Multiliteracies and discussion based teaching
• Gamification

I will want to revisit the Larnaca Declaration on Learning design that outlines the following three components:

• Guiding the design process
• Representing/ visualizing the design process
• Providing mechanisms for practitioners to share and discuss Learning Designs

Several learning design frameworks are presented, and 10 dimensions of openness are illustrated (this would constitute a nice check list!), however, there was a lot of repetition in the article from prior readings (especially Conole’s article cited earlier).

Shé Ní, C., Farrell, O., Brunton, J., Costello, E., Donlon, E., Trevaskis, S., & Eccles, S. (2019). Teaching online is different: Critical perspectives from the literature. Retrieved from Dublin City University website: https://openteach.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Teaching-online-is-different.pdf

Many good reminders of what constitutes effective teaching practices and learning environments. I am not sure I would have titled the article “Teaching online is different”. It would appear to me (and the research supports) that the role of the educator and competencies that characterize effective teaching are universal.

I just introduced an inquiry project to my Biology 11 students.  The way in which I approach inquiry based projects has changed drastically in recent years, largely due to an experience I had accompanying a student to the BC Cancer Agency in Victoria several years ago. I nominated a student of mine (at their request) and attended a one day workshop at the Cancer Agency where we learned of recent developments in the treatment of Cancer, and spent time in the lab performing the experiments that inform doctors of the best methods of treatments for individual patients. Part of the internship required a formal research paper to be submitted and I realized that my senior science students were not prepared for such a task.  I was not requiring my students to access scientific journals and articles, and the depth of the research was limited to using google and google scholar.

This realization prompted me to redesign my inquiry assignment’s introduction, criteria, and assessment. I collaborated with our librarian and now all my students receive a lesson on identifying and avoiding fake news, using databases to access journal articles, and why scholarly resources are superior to popular resources. Today while I listened to the presentation being given by our librarian I had new questions and concerns that were prompted from recent readings regarding OER. We teach our students that scholarly resources (those accessed through academic journal subscriptions) have gone through several levels of rigorous editing and review, and hence are valid, reliable, and trustworthy sources. For popular sources we advise students to find the same information reported on 3 different sites and to use their ‘ABC’s’ when navigating information on the web to ensure it is valid and reliable:

• A: Author Who is the author? What is their education?
• B: Body Does their experience relate? Does the information sound far-fetched?
• C: Currency How recent was the piece written?
• S: Sources Do they included sources?

When listening to our librarians presentation, I was compelled to ask about google scholar and other sites that do not require subscriptions and hence might not go through the same levels of rigorous review as journal articles. The reputations of journals rely on the quality of the research they include, so I have confidence encouraging my students to use journals. I can not be certain of which steps, if any, were taken to ensure the reliability or validity of research provided on open sources. As we broaden the definition of ‘Open’ resources to included resources that can be remixed or adapted, my confidence plummets considerably.

My conclusion after introducing my inquiry project is that I still highly value research contained in journals because of the processes that are in place to ensure a high level of quality. It follows that I do not hold the same confidence or have the same respect for Open Resources, and unfortunately I admit that this extends to all areas of Open Educational Resources.  Without having the economic scaffolding that supports and expects excellence, I will always question the material I am being presented. I am thankful and relieved that I can encourage my students to look to Journals for reputable research. Yes, they still need to be critical thinkers when they navigate the research and information contained in journals. And yes, it is unfortunate that the school district (or university, or students) has to pay to access the journals.  But at the end of this day, I still think it’s worth it.

What? So What? Now What?

What?  I will start with a brief annotated bibliography of the two assigned readings:

Friesen, N. (2009). Open Educational Resources: New Possibilities for Change and Sustainability. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i5.664

Friesen dives deeper than the philosophical arguments that support Open Educational Resources, and considers factors that influence OER project’s longevity and financial sustainability. He holds the MIT Open Courseware Initiative up as a successful example of an OER project, and argues that increased student recruitment and marketing  have contributed to the project’s success. I appreciated the realistic analysis of the success and failures of OER projects, as evidenced by the number of  collections from January of 2009 that are no longer in operation. Collaboration between the technology experts, business and marketing experts, the educational institution, and the individuals to whom the resources are intended is imperative for an OER to be successful. In addition, reflective practices and continued discourse between stakeholders is necessary for longevity.

Friesen begins his article by defining open educational resources as “the open provision of educational resources, enabled by information and communication technologies, for consultation, use and adaptation by a community of users for noncommercial purposes” (UNESCO, 2002, p24). On December 2, 2019, a blog post by David Wiley points out that a recent decision by UNESCO’s members has limited the use of OER to simply accessing the materials, rather than retaining OER. I am struggling with how to interpret the readings this week when the definition of OER is unclear, and therefor the possibilities available to me through accessing those resources are limited. I already have access to an immense amount of material. Being able to copy, edit, and make educational resources my own is what holds value for me. Otherwise, it is simply a text book that is available online.

Conole, G., & Brown, M. (2018). Reflecting on the Impact of the Open Education Movement. Journal of Learning for Development – JL4D, 5(3). Retrieved from
http://jl4d.org/index.php/ejl4d/article/view/314

Conole and  Brown inspect the rise of the Open Education Movement (in particular e-textbooks, MOOC’s and OER) from the perspectives of learner, teacher and researcher.  There is some ambiguity in the introduction as to what constitutes Open Educational Resources, however definitions of OER often include the freedom to use,  reuse and share free digital content. I envision a staircase with limited (perhaps by student number) online free access on the bottom step, and additional attributes adding stairs until one reaches the top of the staircase: Free, unlimited, access to educational resources with the ability to use, adapt and distribute open material. Conole and Brown outline the benefits of e-textbooks and MOOC’s by considering relevant case studies at the post secondary level, and then describe barriers and enablers to OER and MOOCs. Unfortunately, I did not find any of their reflections ground breaking although I did appreciate the summary. In the conclusion it is revealed that the author’s do not predict that open practices will replace traditional educational offerings, and that the most potential of OER lies in offering a varied learner experience, challenging traditional educational offerings, and providing free resources for learning.

Throughout the reading I can’t help but question the potential depth and breadth of the Open Education Movement in post secondary education.  Even if open online learning was afforded the same or similar credentials as traditional higher education, would it drastically change who aspired to pursue higher education? I can only speak to the North American situation, but in my experience a student with drive and potential has access to thousands of dollars in scholarships and bursaries to help them achieve a post-secondary education. Might the most difficult barriers to higher education be childhood trauma, emotional stability, a difficult upbringing or the lack of positive and encouraging role models? To tackle these barriers would take moving mountains. Perhaps providing OER is a step in the right direction, or perhaps we should be focusing our time and money on equaling the educational playing field by tackling the really tough stuff.

When considering “So What” and “Now What” I will focus on OER in BC Public Schools.

So what?

What can be learned by reviewing the successes and failures of Open Educational Resources?  What new possibilities exist for OER and how can we improve the sustainability of OER?

By looking to projects such as MIT Open Courseware Initiative and Creative Commons we can see the attributes that have contributed to success and longevity of OER, however we must also considering failed OER projects. A continued source of funding and a strong business model, a clear vision, diverse educational material, ongoing content development, and marketing were noted as important contributors for success. For my specific purposes as a senior science teacher, I can see that the benefits for OER in public education could be far-reaching, however the above noted attributes must be in place for successful implementation. Also of utmost importance for me is that an OER project in public education is not simply allowing access for students and/or teachers, but is affording the opportunity for the 5 R’s for everyone: the ability to retain, reuse, revise, remix and redistribute the information.

Have my opinions or perspectives changed after doing the readings?

I am a little more skeptical of the potentials for success of OER in public education for the following reasons:

1. First of all, it would likely not be truly ‘open’ as it would be intended for teachers, students, or for families of students in particular school districts. However, it could still offer many of the positive attributes of an OER for its users.
2. Public education is a publicly funded service and employees of public education are unionized, which has not (in my opinion) contributed to public education exemplifying a strong business model.
3. Financially, it would need to be presented in such a way that educators and schools would be convinced to do-away with textbooks, hence providing a cost savings that could contribute to the OER project.
4. The sheer number of educators that could contributors to such a project would require a highly organized LMS.
5. Maintenance of the project. By whom? Would this be a provincial project with district representatives? Who would be responsible for the implementation and maintenance of the project?
6. Collaboration between stakeholders. The introduction of a new directives (for example, new technologies, new curriculum, MyEd, cultural orientation and inclusive education, just to name a few) have generally not been communicated well to employees and have generally not been supported by adequate input, time and training.

Now What?

How can I take what I have learned and apply it to my teaching practice? 

Even with all the obstacles that face OER projects, I am still optimistic that such resources will be made available for BC public schools and the BC public school curriculum. My role in the implementation of such a project would be to invest the time and effort into orienting myself with the project, contributing worthy content, and investing significant time restructuring my courses for continued improvement, relevance and interest. By learning from others’ mistakes, learning from our own mistakes, and building on our successes, there is certainly potential for OER to be a valuable part of BC’s Public Education system.

I have and will continue to encourage my students to access available on-line materials that currently exist in order to help them be curious and independent learners. Should I also be making my lessons and teaching materials open and on-line?  Teachers pay teachers (although not free) and creating a teacher website are two ways that I could offer my personal teaching resources to the general public. I hesitate to do this as I adapt and change my lessons and resources each semester. The responsibility of managing my online contributions on top of my current responsibilities is daunting. I will need to spend more time considering this question.

What? So What? Now What?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

“history” by lert is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 

What?  I will start with a brief annotated bibliography of the three assigned readings:

Weller, M. (2018, August). Twenty Years of Edtech. EDUCAUSE Review, 53(4). Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2018/7/twenty-years-of-edtech

Weller points out how poorly the edtech field has documented its history, and attempts to identify the most significant technology in education each year over the past twenty years. Beginning with Wikis in 1998, he mapped the past twenty years through the highs and lows of e-learning, learning objects, e-learning standards, OER, blogs, LMS’s, Video, Web 2.0, Virtual worlds, e-portfolios, social media, connectivism, PLE, MOOC’s, Open Textbooks, Learning Analytics, Digital Badges, AI, and Blockchain. Over the twenty years we see uncertainty and optimism regarding what technologies will mean for education and society. We see that the potential of certain technologies are sometimes not realized immediately, but can resurface years later. We see dreams of creating dynamic, open and respectful spaces, limited by the realities of contracts, pedagogical ideologies, and issues around free speech and offensive online behavior. I thoroughly enjoyed the article and appreciated the overview of technological developments, especially since I felt disconnected from the progress of technology through the 2000’s when we began our family. I kept thinking how this article could be transformed into an illustrated timeline like the one seen in the halls of Spectrum.

Zawacki-Richter, O., & Naidu, S. (2016). Mapping research trends from 35 years of publications in Distance Education. Distance Education, 37(3), 245–269. http://ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/login?url=https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1185079

This analysis attempts to identify themes in distance education by using the text-mining tool Leximancer over the past 35 years, by grouping titles and abstracts over 5-year periods. With the first distance Universities established in the late 1960’s, by the 80’s distance education was considered a scholarly field. Dating back to 1980, Zawacki-Richter and Naidu discovered the following trends: Professionalization and institutional consolidation (1980-1984), instructional design and education technology (1985-1989), quality assurance in distance education (1990-1994), student support and early stages of online learning (1995-1999), the emergence of the virtual university (2000-2004), collaborative learning and online interaction patterns (2005-2009), and interactive learning, MOOCs and OERs (2010-2014). Of particular interest for me was the alternating pattern of the research themes the authors discovered when analyzing journal articles in Distance Education. Every five years the focus of research alternated between an institutional and an individual research perspective. This reminds me of my teaching practicum over 20 years ago, when the idea of the pendulum swinging in education was first introduced to me.

Peter, S., & Deimann, M. (2013). On the role of openness in education: A historical reconstruction. Open Praxis, 5(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.5.1.23

Peter and Deimann consider the idea of what “open” in education means by going back to the middle ages before educational institutions, and considering who has had access to information through the ages. The availability of knowledge or education varied during the middle ages as religious views and strongholds changed, and as economics began shaping the generation of printed works. During the Renaissance Penny Universities sprung up in coffee houses allowing access to information and the opportunity for public discussions and debates. In 1836 the University of London Royal Charter encouraged individuals from every walk of life to pursue an education which lead to the first “Open University” in 1858. The article closes by suggesting that education shifts from “pure” openness towards “pretended” openness.  The question could certainly still be asked today: Open to whom?

So what?

How has the evolution of open education and EdTech affected my career in education, and how has this in turn affected the learners in our education system? 

It is difficult to summarize how EdTech has affected my 21 year career as an educator. Perhaps I can provide a snapshot of teaching and learning from 20 years ago and compare it to my experience today. Twenty years ago I was completely dependent on textbooks and the resources provided by the school. Computers were mainly used to create word documents, emails or to conduct research for projects, however there were only a few computers available in the library for the entire school. Today, I can help my students become independent learners and problem solvers by encouraging them to use technology in the classrooms (please have your phone out during class!).  I do not assign a textbook and, in fact, I rarely refer to a text book for my lesson development (although I still offer them to students who appreciate this method of learning).  I can promote critical thinking and inquiry with confidence as I do not need to be the expert of all things. Finally, there is much more variety and student engagement in my classroom today than twenty years ago because of technology and the availability of information, teaching resources and learning tools. I would be remiss to ignore the challenges technology can present, such as increased student distractions, unavailability of individual chromebooks or ipads (we are currently at a 3:1 student to device ratio in our school), and the sheer task of staying up to date with emails, shared files, and new apps. Perhaps the most time consuming is staying up to date on recent scientific discoveries and developments, for example, in the areas of nutrition and genetics. With the availability of information comes the responsibility to be up to date and relevant in my teaching.

Have my opinions or perspectives changed after doing the readings?

It has become very clear that with all the opportunities and options that technology affords, I will need to be thoughtful and intentional in the ones I choose to use in my classroom.

Now What?

How can I take what I have learned and apply it to my teaching practice? 

• Weller’s article reminds me of the wealth of opportunities that technology can provide for both me and my students. Perhaps most of all, this article reinforces my commitment to help my students be independent learners, problem solvers and critical thinkers by modelling these attributes through appropriate use of technology in the classroom.
• Zawacki-Richter and Naidu’s article reminds me of the delicate balance between educational content and relationships.  Focusing on one too closely will be to the detriment of the other.
• Peter’s article highlights that I must have a critical eye when it comes to open education and resources: Do all my learners have access to the technology and resources at school and at home?