Teaching with Intention

Wander often, Wonder always

Archives (page 2 of 4)

Design Thinking for Educators

“Design is thinking made visual” by Yeray Vega is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 

This weeks themes have been critical thinking, problem solving, decision making and design thinking.  As a high school math and science teacher, I spend significant time discussing how to identify valid information and trustworthy resources. Each semester I begin with several lessons that define, model and teach higher level thinking, critical thinking, and problem solving and these themes permeate all my classes. As such, I will focus my energies this week on the less familiar concept of design thinking.

The Interaction Design Foundation defines design thinking as:

a non-linear, iterative process which seeks to understand users, challenge assumptions, redefine problems and create innovative solutions to prototype and test. The method consists of 5 phases—Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype and Test and is most useful when you want to tackle problems that are ill-defined or unknown.

The 5 phases of design thinking (as outlined by the Interaction Design Foundation) really require learners to be well rounded and sophisticated thinkers. Let’s break it down:

  1. Empathize: See a need, fill a need. This requires that the design thinker understand others and has a high level of emotional intelligence.
  2. Define: Although defining is usually considered first level thinking, here the design thinker must gather the data collected through empathizing and then analyze and synthesize that information to define a problem to be solved. This process requires that design thinkers are skilled and experienced higher level thinkers.
  3. Ideate: The true test of the higher level thinker! One must think outside the box to create innovative solutions.
  4. Prototype: Start to create solutions. Left brain thinkers, prepare to challenge your abilities and strengthen your right brain’s creative and artistic capabilities.
  5. Test: Try your solutions out

It follows that digital tools used with the intention of design thinking and learning should promote critical and higher level thinking because of the very nature of the process. Critical thinking (the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment) is a necessary skill required for design thinking.

Although I really like lists and step by step instructions, Stephanie Overby warns in an article published in The Enterprisers Project that we should not attempt design thinking as a process, but rather as a mindset geared towards creating and providing a service. She describes the major tenets of design thinking as observation, empathy, human need, and ongoing engagement. Another interesting read, also by Stephanie Overby, is  10 Design Thinking Myths Debunked.

Stephanie Overby suggests the following 5 Ted Talks for describing the intentions, process, and key characteristics of Design Thinking: (It is important to note that I am watching these Ted Talks though the lens of an educator during the Covid 19 pandemic, and hence have a focus on being innovative when designing online learning opportunities for my students.)

Tony Fadell: The first secret of design is…noticing

Favorite Quote from Tony Fadell: “I try to see the world the way it really is. Not the way we think it is. Why? Because it’s easy to solve a problem that almost everyone sees, but its hard to solve a problem that almost no one sees.”

Tim Brown: Designers – Think Big!

Favorite Quote from Tim Brown: “In times of change we need new alternatives, new ideas…and in these times of change we need these new choices because our existing solutions are simply becoming obsolete.” I especially like Tim Brown’s 4 characteristics of design thinking:

  1. Design is human centered
  2. Design thinkers learn by making (prototyping)
  3. The primary objective is participation
  4. Design may have its greatest impact when its taken out of the hands of designers and put into the hands of everyone.

David Kelley: How to build your creative confidence

Take-away or provocation from David Kelley: How can we change the trepidation that teachers and students have towards online learning?

Paul Bennett: Design is in the details

Favorite Quote from Paul Bennett: “It’s not about huge, ridiculous things we need to do. It’s about tiny things that can make a huge amount of difference.” Also, I really like the term Paul Bennett uses: Empathic solution.

Guido Stompff: Speed up Innovation with Design Thinking

Favorite Quote from Guido Stompff: “Before, no one knows what the outcome will be. In the end they have something they’re quite proud of. But they learn on the go, they learn while they create what they are inventing.”

Since much of this week’s learning was done through watching Ted Talks, I decided to conclude with a recorded reflection using Zoom:

Additional Resources:

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking Design Issues: MIT Press, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Spring, 1992), pp. 5-21

Galileo (2019). Designing Learning. Retrieved from https://galileo.org/designing-learning/ (Inquiry and Design Thinking)

 

 

A New Role for Teachers

“Albuquerque 2016” by lito is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0 

This week has been historical. And emotional. And incredibly challenging. Amid the Covid-19 pandemic most of our daily routines have been disrupted, many of our securities erased, and some of our worst fears are being realized.  The financial situation for many has, or will soon, become crippling. And the health concerns, whether they be for ourselves or our loved ones, can be overwhelming. Amid this crisis many ‘regular’ citizens have become heroes, such as nurses, doctors, grocery clerks, pharmacy workers, custodians, food producers, and warehouse workers. Teachers have not been asked to join the countless others that have had to dug their heels in and alter their ways of thinking and working. Yet. We are half way through spring break now, and it is my hope that when it is time to return to work that teachers might be able to create a sense of  normalcy amid the chaos and uncertainty of this pandemic.

Many teachers enter the profession because they had a positive experience during their own education. Maybe  it was a creative and engaging teacher, or a supportive counselor, or an inspirational administrator. During this unique and difficult time we have a chance to connect in new and meaningful ways with our students. We can strengthen a sense of community, exercise our compassion and creativity, and be the calm and caring leaders that our students need in these uncertain times.

It will not be easy. The learning curve for teachers and students will be steep. But if we do not let fear of failure or the challenge of the unknown stop us from trying we have the opportunity to provide an invaluable service to students, parents and the community at large. By simplifying our lessons,  sharing resources, being creative and flexible, and focusing on personal connections we stand to have a very significant and positive impact on society.

It will require leadership. I believe our provincial leaders are doing a remarkable job uniting Canada during this pandemic.  They are modelling how important it is to work together, in spite of any differences, for the benefit of all citizens.  Our school districts and our administrative staff will need to come together to envision a new way for our education system to move forward and serve our students. They will also need to focus on supporting and encouraging their staff, and nurturing the personal relationships and connections they have with their staff so that we can work as a united community.

It will require that we take care of ourselves and each other. It can be a challenging task to take care of ourselves and our families during these trying times.  That will look different for every individual, and may be different for each individual every day. I am grateful that I have had this first week of spring break to take care of myself and my family, to process the situation we are in and to be thoughtful and deliberate in how I want to proceed. My goal for this next week is to reach out and start building the strong community that will be necessary if we, as a community of educators and public servants, are going to have the tools, resources and support we will need in our new reality.

I believe we can join the growing community of everyday heroes. This is an opportunity for teachers to be far more than educators, and to have the positive impact on our students and community that initially drew us to this profession.

Digital Literacy Frameworks

“2014 Google Digital Literacy Multimodal Skills slide 19” by jjfbbennett is licensed under CC BY 2.0 

This week our masters cohort had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Tim Winkelmans from the Ministry of Education to explore the story behind the development of the BC Digital Literacy Framework. Reflecting on the webinar with Dr. Winkleman and additional research into other existing frameworks I will consider the following questions:

  • What is the purpose of digital literacy frameworks?
  • What is the digital literacy and what characteristics does it involve?
  • What are some other existing digital literacy frameworks?
  • How does B.C.’s Digital Literacy Framework compare? What is missing?

To conclude, I will reflect on how literacy frameworks can assist with my project design or redesign.

What is the purpose of digital literacy frameworks?

Dr. Winklemans experience with technology stretches back to the 80’s when Pascal was the main programming language and dial up text-based conferencing tools were cutting edge. In the 90’s he evaluated software for the Ministry of Education’s and became the manager responsible for correspondence learning. Dr. Winklemans states that the digital literacy framework came about as a response to a platform commitment that Christy Clark made as one of her election commitments in 2008 or 2009 to ensure that every student was digitally literate at an early age.  The intention of the framework was to provide the best advice to politicians and make sense of statements like “digitally literate at an early age”. The steps that Dr. Winkelmans and his team took were to convene a working group in the ministry and an advisory group comprised of educators, trustees and others involved in public education to consider and research the dimensions of the problem and to put together a project plan. Their goal was to establish an opinion as a ministry to define digital literacy and outline ways that it can be achieved. They considered what was currently available in educational technology, and identified the set of standards established by ISTE (who created the National Educational Technology Framework), and used it as a basis for their work intended for British Columbians. The resulting framework would remove content from the equation and talk about contexts, ethics and values around technology use. It appears that the intention of the document was to define characteristics of digital literate students, however I believe it can also be an effective tool to assist, guide and assess curriculum development.

What is digital literacy and what characteristics does it involve?

Digital Literacy is defined by BC’s Digital Literacy Framework as “the interest, attitude and ability of individuals to use digital technology and communication tools appropriately to access, manage, integrate, analyze and evaluate information, construct new knowledge, and create and communicate with others”. The Government of BC states that digital literacy is an important skill to have in today’s technology based world, and defines the characteristics of digital literacy as:

  1. Research and Information Literacy
  2. Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making
  3. Creativity and Innovation
  4. Digital Citizenship
  5. Communication and Collaboration
  6. Technology Operations and Concepts. 

These six characteristics are based on the National Educational Technology Standards for Students developed by the International Society for Technology in Education, CommonSense Media’s K-12 Digital Literacy and Citizenship Curriculum, and European Commission’s Online Consultation on Experts’ Views on Digital Competence.

What are some other existing digital literacy frameworks? 

Upon the creation of BC Digital Literacy Framework there was little common agreement of what digital literacy was. For some it was all about computing and coding, and for others it was the social and ethical aspects involving technology.  Current digital literacy frameworks include all considerations relevant to digital literacy. A few examples of other frameworks include:

It is interesting to note the different names of the frameworks, as some refer to digital literacy (singular), some refer to digital literacies (plural), and some refer to competencies or capabilities. Regardless of the specific words used to describe the characteristics that are required for efficient and effective technology use, there are many similarities among the noted frameworks.  Of course, there are also some differences.

How does B.C.’s digital literacy framework compare? What is missing?

ISTE has different standards for Students, Teachers, Educators, Coaches, and Education in general, while BC’s Framework has focused on standards for students. Interested individuals could find more specific standards relevant to their personal context by referring to the ISTE Standards. Media Smart’s framework is very similar to ISTE and BC’s standards, however it further breaks down student digital literacies into grades K-3, 4-6, 7-8, and 9-12. Singapore’s Digital Media Framework is directed to program owners and public agencies, so it’s 3 categories are broader and less specific to education (benefits, risks and possibilities of technology; how to use information responsibly; and how to use digital technology responsibly). The Welsh government’s framework is very similar to BC’s, however it is broken down into digital competencies for each year/grade. Jisc and La Trobe are also similar in their categories and content for digital literacy, although they have a higher education focus. Jisc is a UK non-profit organization that supports UK higher education institutions in digital technology and resources, and La Trobe University is in Australia.

BC Digital Literacy Framework also breaks down the literacies for specific grades, although it does so under each category rather than providing distinct frameworks for each grade. So far, my research is showing common themes and information among the frameworks, although they vary in to whom they are intended and how specific the literacies are for each grade or age group. This is not surprising when you consider that ISTE was the first framework available and has likely served as a primary reference for the development of subsequent frameworks. I believe this speaks to the depth of understanding and research that initially went into the ISTE standards.

It is interesting to review the Core Competencies of BC’s New Curriculum in light of BC Digital Literacy Framework.  One can see many parallels, and (as Dr. Winkelmans noted), it is evident that the BC Digital Literacy Framework was a reference for the developers of BC’s New Curriculum.  That being said, something that is prominent in the new curriculum but not referred to in the BC Digital Literacy Framework is indigenous content and perspectives.

Applications for me…

For my project, I am particularly interested in Digital Literacy #5 from the BC Digital Literacy Framework: Communication and Collaboration. Students in my Environmental Science class will be working together to create a short film that will be shared on social media to communicate the meaning and importance of Earth Day. This project will require that students:

  • research the history of earth day and relevant environmental facts that support it’s inception. (Digital Literacy #1: Research and information Literacy)
  • Employ critical thinking strategies, problem solving, and decision making when it comes to deciding on which tools and resources to use that best suite the project design. (Digital Literacy #2: Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Decision Making)
  • practice creativity and innovation when constructing the project piece with a goal of captureing the attention and evoking the emotions of their audience. (Digital Literacy #3: Creativity and Innovation)
  • understand Digital Citizenship when creating and sharing their contribution to the final product, including staying safe on the internet through an awareness of privacy and security concerns. (Digital Literacy #4: Digital Citizenship)
  • use digital media to communicate and work collaboratively. This will further develop their general knowledge and functional technology skills. (Digital Literacy #5: Communication and Collaboration)

The ISTE standards for educators is helpful in assisting self reflection of my role as Learner, Leader, Citizen, Collaborator, Designer, Facilitator, and Analyst (ISTE standards 1-7 for educators). The one fundamental tool that is missing from the aforementioned frameworks is a repository of quality technological apps, platforms, Learning Management Systems and other resources that can assist student and teacher utilize technology efficiently and effectively. But perhaps that is the natural consequence of being Digital Literate.

Finally, I would like to share following short film by the BBC, which has inspired me while developing the curriculum for Environmental Science, and especially when designing our upcoming Earth Day Project.

Module 5: Technology’s Place in Education

“EdTech Rally 2014” by Kent ISD is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 

This week both motivated me to continue learning about technology trends and resources in education and immersed me in applications of edtech for my high school students. The first reading from Preparing for the Digital University, gave me incentive to continue learning about emerging technologies by reviewing popular resources in edtech. The second article, What’s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s, considered the challenges and opportunities that are predicted to shape edtech in the next decade. Within this article I found direction for how to equip my students for success in the future with regards to technology.  The final reading,  A Look at the Future of Open Educational Resources, reviewed technology’s role in helping our students to become content creators, adaptive learners, and active participants in research communities and learning networks.

Preparing for the Digital University: A Review of the History and Current State of Distance, Blended, and Online Learning

In the abstract Preparing for the Digital University, I discovered several compelling reasons for continued research in edtech. I found the  introductory statement “Technology infrastructure shapes learning and learning opportunities” profound, and the observation that edtech has matured from emulating teacher generated learning opportunities to student-centered and directed learning opportunities significant.  The latter observation convinces me that exploring emerging technologies is imperative in order to productively facilitate such learning opportunities.

This article was fantastic for noting and discussing relevant resources. Of particular interest to me were the following:

  • Coursera – open education delivery platform
  • gRSShopper – content management system for research – open sourced and free
  • Mahara – open-source eportfolio software
  • Knewton, Smart Sparrow, OLI, and LoudCloud – competency-based, self regulated, and personalized software
  • Federated Wiki – incorporates wiki and blogging
  • ProSolo – has self-directed, competency-based, social networking focus

Students and teacher should recognize that the sustainability (and therefor longevity) of these tools are variable and prepare for their closure by backing up their work. This is evidenced by the educational social media platforms Known and Elgg which are mentioned in the article but no longer exist. ‘Link rot’ is not the only pitfall to OER that students and educators should be aware of. OER: lessons from the field raises concerns of data security and privacy, quality of information, furthering the divide between socio-economic groups, and copyright costs and infringement even when using OER.

What’s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020’s

Before reading this article I considered what I thought will challenge and shape the next ten years of educational technology, and these are my top 5:

  1. public school restructuring and funding with respect to providing 1:1 technology tools for public school learners
  2. union/pay issues and their impact on (quality) teacher recruitment
  3. professional development in the area of technology
  4. a loss of foundational skills – perhaps we will need to return to some traditional teaching methods to complement more recent educational innovations and developments (including technology).
  5. climate change and the impacts of technology

Admittedly, I began reading the second assigned reading by Selwyn, et al. (2019) thinking it would be predictable and irrelevant for the practicing teacher, however I was pleasantly surprised.  This paper explained 6 issues that the authors expect to shape educational technology in the next decade:

  1. New forms of digital in/exclusion: economics
  2. Platform economics in an age of artificial intelligence: datafication
  3. Divisions of learning across humans and machines.  The authors claim we need to re-establish the value of formal education in light of the affordances of edtech, and  “Above all, then, we need to challenge accepted views of what constitutes meaningful and worthwhile knowledge for our future societies.” (pg. 3)
  4. IT industry actors as a leading educational force. The information in this section is so relevant and important for practicing teachers and education policy makers.
  5. Reimaging forms of EdTech suitable for an age of climate change
  6. Finding alternatives: solidary economies, convivial technology, respectful design. This section is so forward thinking and seems so optimistic, however I am not convinced that big companies will release their economic hold on education. But one can always dream…

The authors were so eloquent, thorough and critical in how they presented their ideas I was compelled to look up their credentials and what perspective/interest they may have in edtech. The authors are an impressive list of individuals from around the world:

  • Neil Selwyn is a professor in the Faculty of Education, Monash University.
  • Thomas Hillman is a senior lecturer at the University of Gothenberg, Sweden.
  • Rebecca Eynon is a professor at the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) and the Department of Education at the University of Oxford.
  • Giselle Ferreira is a Lecturer at the Department of Education, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
  • Jeremy Knox is a Lecturer in Digital Education at the University of Edinburgh.
  • Felicitas Macgilchrist is Head of the Media | Transformation department and Professor of Media Research at the Georg-August-University of Goettingen’s Institute for International Textbook Research.
  • Juana M. Sancho-Gil is a doctor of Educational Psychology at the University of Barcelona.

This may likely be my favorite reading thus far in my masters program as it motivated me and gave clear direction on how to educate myself in edtech so that I can effectively help prepare my students for our shared future.

A Look at the Future of Open Educational Resources

I have spent time this past week looking at data from the DataBC website to prepare for my upcoming Environmental Science class. This resource has a plethora of data and information dating back for decades (and is being updated regularly).  What an excellent source of Open Educational Resources! As noted in A Look at the Future of Open Educational Resources, the use of cloud technologies, open data, artificial intelligence, and decentralized networks result in a model of dynamic and adaptive resources that will be created at the point of need and will draw on constantly changing requirements and data sources…As a result, the emphasis on content publication and licensing will decrease, while questions of access and interoperability will move to the fore.

My concern when looking at all the data provided on the single website, DataBC, I wonder how my students will navigate the immense amount of information that is available to them. How will they find an influential and impactful platform to share their data and is there a more efficient way we can bring these data sets together? As more and more individuals generate their own content, how could/should we either give permission to use and redistribute our content or reject the notion of OER’s and acquire a certificate of copyright?  Interestingly, only now am I coming to realize that all the information on the web I currently use for education neither states it is OER, nor does it likely have a certificate of registration of copyright. That is a lot of content that leaves users unsure of whether they are free to reuse, redistribute, or remix the information. It is mentioned in Downes’ article (pg. 5) that Creative commons offers a Certificate course in licensing content.  I am interested in taking such a course so that I can provide advise to my students as they continue to progress from consumers to producers of information. I am wondering why this is not currently an elective offered in high school, as many of them have been producing content (on youtube and TikTok for example) for years. I am left with many questions regarding when it becomes important and appropriate to license one’s content.

Finally, I really appreciate the comments

From the pedagogical perspective, the learning happens not through the consumption of the content but through the use of the content. (Siemens, Gašević, Dawson, 2015, p. 5)

and

the philosophy of ‘open science’, where “many of the benefits envisaged for open methods relate to how far they enable not only access but active participation in a research community by newcomers and outsiders, and maintain low barriers to this participation.” (Siemens, Gašević, Dawson, 2015, p. 7)

These quotes reflect my philosophy for my Environmental Science class in particular, and through exploring this way of learning and knowing I hope to further expand upon this teaching philosophy in all my courses.

References

Downes, S. (2019). A Look at the Future of Open Educational Resources. International Journal of Open Educational Resources, 1(2). Retrieved from https://www.ijoer.org/a-look-at-the-future-of-open-educational-resources/

Kaufman, R. and Campana, A. (2019). OER: lessons from the field. Insights, 2019, 32: 15, 1-14. https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.464/

Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Eynon, R., Ferreira, G., Knox, J., Macgilchrist, F., & Sancho-Gil, J. M. (2019). What’s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–6. http://ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/login?url=https://doi.org/10/ggc9w2

Siemens, G., Gašević, D., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the Digital University: A Review of the History and Current State of Distance, Blended, and Online Learning. Retrieved from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website: http://linkresearchlab.org/PreparingDigitalUniversity.pdf

Module 4: A Counter Narrative

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.

Module 3: Reflections on The Other Opens

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.

Summary of Module 2: Open educational practices and Learning Design

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.

Are Open Resources Muddying the Water or Parting the Sea?

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.