Online Learning: Content & Design

I hope you enjoy this video on online learning!



Video Credits
I would like to thank the following people and organizations for their contributions to this video.

Photo Credits
OZinOH
James Sarmiento
Shanghai Daddy
Estatevaults
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Tywkiwdbi
Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center
iClipArt

Video Clips
Edutopia: Project-Based Learning Clips

Interviews, Video Participants
Jon Voss
Jon Fila
Paul Bennett
Max Smart

References
Bird, L. (2007). The 3 "C" design model for networked collaborative e-learning: A tool for novice designers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(2), 153-167. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Hannum, W.H., & McCombs, B.L. (2008). Enhancing distance learning with learner-centered principles. Educational Technology, 48(4), 11-21.

Robins, D. & Holmes, J. (2008). Aesthetics and credibility in website design. Information Processing and Management, 44, p. 386-399.

Scribner, D. E., (2007). High school students’ perceptions: Supporting motivation to engage and persist in learning (Doctoral Dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Tractinsky, N., Katz, A., & Ikar, D. (2000) What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 127-145.

University of Indianapolis. (2009). Summary of project-based learning. Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcell.uindy.edu%2Fdocs%2FPBL%2520research%2520summary.pdf&rct=j&q=University%20of%20Indianapolis.%20(2009).%20Summary%20of%20project-based%20learning.&ei=qbhcTdC9IsqCtgf5lMXaCg&usg=AFQjCNHXNElLRhYpxdq_Z2WY3ONXFhy_rw&sig2=16v-VO_mFzL7WjDDUoxz1A&cad=rja

Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2010). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: An annual review of state-level policy and practice. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.kpk12.com/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPaceK12_2010.pdf

Zhang, P. (2009). Theorizing the relationship between affect and aesthetics in the ICT design and use context. Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Information Resources Management, (pp 1-15). Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Annotations

Bird, L. (2007). The 3 "C" design model for networked collaborative e-learning: A tool for novice designers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(2), 153-167. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Bird builds a theoretical argument based on research for a new approach to online learning course design. In his model, he argues for a three pronged approach that focuses on content, which is the fundamental knowledge in the course, construction, which is new knowledge built through engaging in the course, and consolidation, which describes the process of fusing together knowledge after a meaningful learning experience.
Bird’s argument is certainly logical, and I found it insightful to look at learning through this lens. However, I’m not sure that I can agree fully with the definitions that he argues for. Intuitively, it seems like the boundaries are somewhat ill defined, and that a sharper model or a refined model is needed to strengthen his argument.

Hannum, W.H., & McCombs, B.L. (2008). Enhancing distance learning with learner-centered principles. Educational Technology, 48(4), 11-21.

Hannum and McCombs use a summary of current research in distance learning and student motivation to build and argument for designing online courses that are based on 14 learner-centered principles such as strategic thinking and construction of knowledge. They conclude that distance learning and course design must take into considerations the needs, motivations, and goals of learners in order to be successful in today’s cultural climate.
I thought this article was a precise and logical blueprint for engaging students by involving students’ goals and needs in the learning process. They lay a strong research foundation for their argument and stayed within the implications of the research nicely. My only critique of the article would be that several of the learner-centered principles could benefit from sharper definitions and clarifications, but this is perhaps to be expected given the limitations of the length of the article.

Robins, D. & Holmes, J. (2008). Aesthetics and credibility in website design. Information Processing and Management, 44, p. 386-399.

Robins and Holmes conducted a study in which 20 subjects evaluate the credibility of websites based on their aesthetic appeal. The study was excellently presented in the article, and it was a particular pleasure to read the precise writing, which made understanding both the study and its findings a straightforward process. The study concluded that aesthetics have a direct and strong impact on perceived credibility of a particular organization. Even in cases where credibility scored low, aesthetics raised the credibility of a site. This would imply that focusing on aesthetics is vital for a broad range of Internet applications.
I found this study to be particularly well developed, presented, and executed. The authors thought of everything, and were particularly clear in presenting their results.

Scribner, D. E., (2007). High school students’ perceptions: Supporting motivation to engage and persist in learning (Doctoral Dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Scribner’s doctoral thesis is an extensive, well-detailed, and comprehensive examination of high school students’ perceptions towards online learning. She interviewed 200 students from Virtual High School and builds a strong collection of data for examination. She then proceeds to draw a wide range of compelling conclusions from the research. Of particular note are her findings that course design, a variety of activities, and a welcoming, student-centered focus are key elements to eliciting student engagement in a course. Overall, I was very impressed with both the extent and quality of her work, and was particularly pleased that it connected directly to my video topic.

Tractinsky, N., Katz, A., & Ikar, D. (2000) What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 127-145.

The authors conducted an experiment where they measured the relationship between aesthetics and usability. In the study, participants used different designs of an Automated Teller Machine interface to conduct simple tasks while the researchers measured various activities and perceptions. They found that aesthetics play a large role in how a user interacts with an interface.
While I found the methodology and results of the study well expressed, I do question the narrowness of the study. I would challenge the authors to expand the scope of future studies. Having said this, the study does add to the growing body of knowledge pointing to the critical nature of interface design and human interaction.

Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2010). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: An annual review of state-level policy and practice. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.kpk12.com/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPaceK12_2010.pdf

Keeping Pace 2010 is this year’s version of the iNacol-sponsored examination of the current state of online learning in the United States. The massive report examines data collected from hundreds of sources and compiles them into an extensive report chronicling trends and patterns in online learning.
From and information standpoint, Keeping Pace 2010 is a helpful bounty of information, but occasionally I question the conclusions the study draws. For example, it’s often implied that Minnesota is behind other states because it doesn’t have a state online learning program, but that to a large degree is intentional. The state has a thriving online system, just not a centralized one.

Static and Dynamic Learning Technologies

To see the image at full size, click on it or go to this public Google doc.

Reflection
In twenty-four years of teaching, I've made lots of mistakes, but I think that one thing that I got right was to always place an strong emphasis on active and dynamic learning experiences in my classes. At first, however, I think I made the mistake of thinking that it was important that I as a teacher be active and dynamic in how I taught. Over the years, I realized that the better question to ask is "How dynamic and active are my students?" With that in mind, I've worked hard to keep my classes as far towards the dynamic end of things as possible. I'm very much an advocate, for example, of Clay Shirky's position that social media has the potential to alter the world. With that said, I think we tend to teach as we were taught, and it's constantly been a struggle for me to keep pushing the edge of the envelope in terms of engaging content and dynamic learning experiences.

I especially struggled when I created my first online course. It was as if I'd forgotten everything I learned from teaching traditional classes, and Moller's (2008) point that we move toward the future with our eye on the past was never more apparent. The course was filled with multiple-choice quizzes and PDF files. In my defense, the technology was not there yet even to deliver reliable video content. The dynamic tools currently available to online teachers simply weren't available then. But what was equally apparent as I look back on that course was that I didn't have a dynamic approach to the class either. As I gained more experience, I think I've been able to build more dynamic learning experiences into the courses that I work on.

Through taking this course, I've become exposed to even more tools for allowing students to create dynamic content, and I'm excited to try to implement them in my classes. I've greatly appreciated the opportunity to incorporate these tools into my learning experiences.

I'd also like to offer up a couple of observations on making the dynamic-static mind map...

First, it struck me that many of the tools could easily go into more than one place. Google Docs, for example, could easily only be used as a static technology for storage and display of non-editable documents. At the same time, you could employ Google Docs as a real-time collaborative tool. In the same way, Google Docs could easily be a tool for content-sharing rather than just collaboration.

Second, the hardest section for me to fill out was the static collaborative tools section. It almost seems as if those places are contradictions in terms. Collaboration, by its nature, implies interaction and dynamic activity. In the end, however, I realized that many of the places where we store our creative works are perhaps the best examples of places where collaboration occurs, but in very much a one-way direction.

References
Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools. [Unpublished Paper]. Retrieved from: http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/courses/14936/CRS-WUEDUC8812-3730064/8842_M5_Paper.pdf