Essentials of Learning

In this week's assignment, we've been asked to answer the question, "What do you believe is critical and non-negotiable in teaching and learning?"

When I was growing up, the Grinch was on television once per year. On one evening in December, for one half hour, you had your chance to watch the Grinch. If you missed it, too bad, you had to wait another year for the Grinch to come around. In today's world of streaming video, Netflix, and DVDs, it would be absurd for us to have to wait for the Grinch for a whole year if we missed it. However, this is exactly what happens in thousands of schools each year. If a student doesn't understand fractions during the week they are taught, he or she often has to wait a year for the content to come around again. The simple fact is that many of our schools are teaching as if they were ABC in 1968.

I believe that it is both critical and non-negotiable that teaching and learning step forward and embrace technology to finally personalize education for today's students. For too long, education has used a classroom model where students move at a one-pace-fits-all rate. It is time to used blended models, flipped classrooms, effective video, and digital resources to transform today's classrooms into learning centers where every student can get the learning they need at the exact moment they need it.

Doing so aligns nicely with both constructivist (Driscoll, 2005) and connectivist (Siemens, 2008) learning theories. Blended and flipped learning plays well into the constructivist camp in that students are often given choice of both content and pace. This allows them to build and create learning rather than simply understanding fixed pathways of learning. By adding technology to the mix, students can connect beyond their classrooms to build and tap into personal learning networks that enrich learning even further. Increasing the effective use of technology in today's schools is a non-negotiable factor and critical to improving teaching and learning in our country.

References

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/Paper105/Siemens.pdf

Motivation in Technology

Our blog post assignment for this week is to describe a situation in which you've introduced an element of technology to people and were met with resistance, then to consider how Keller's ARCS model could be used to create a more positive experience.

I think I'm lucky in this regard, because my entire job as an Innovation Facilitator centers on introducing new projects and technologies to educators, and I can think of quite a few experiences, especially in the beginning of my work with professional development, where technologies and ideas were met with resistance.

Matter of fact, what immediately comes to mind is a training I ran with a colleague for a subset of our teacher population that is known for let's say, not being the most receptive to technology. Over the course of one semester, we tried a number of unsuccessful training sessions centered on various technologies and software. 

In terms of attitudes and behaviors, one of the things that struck me was the group's overall lack of interest in learning new things. Body language was often poor before sessions even started. They were also fairly quick to make negative comments when something would go wrong. For example, if a video wouldn't play, they were quick to make comments along the lines of, "See, this doesn't work. This stuff never works." It was an extraordinarily frustrating experience to walk in to, as apparently the behavior had become somewhat engrained in the group. Needless to say, our initial sessions were unproductive.

In the spring, however, we tried a completely different approach to the training and things went much better. In retrospect, I think we accidentally stumbled onto elements of the ARCS model, which led to the turnaround.

As Driscoll (2005) describes, the ARCS model consists of four elements that can enhance student motivation to learn: attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. In our earlier trainings, I felt like we were working quite hard to get participants' attention, and that our presentations and activities were engaging and well organized. 

Where we missed, however, was the RCS elements of the model. In particular, we did a poor job of bringing training sessions that were relevant to the participants' workday. Even when we created a custom training session on a topic of their request, we soon discovered that they either really didn't need that particular tool, or that they didn't have the fundamental skills down to be able to use that tool without backing up and learning other things first. Confidence was a huge issue for the group as well. We discovered later on that the group had some rather significant confidence issues with technology, and that the complaining that the technology wasn't working was often just an attempt to circumvent exposing that fact that they lacked the most basic skills. Lastly, there was very little to no satisfaction with anything that happened in the sessions.

What worked for us in the spring to completely change the effectiveness of the training sessions was to concentrate on learning the things they did as part of their workday. Once we had a better idea of what their day-to-day jobs entailed, we were better able to bring tools that were more relevant to their work lives. Secondly, we ran a very basic session that tried to address the confidence issues we'd seen in the fall, and it work very well. We brought out into the open the fact that it was okay if you didn't know how to do something with technology, that it's okay if something breaks when you try to use. We stressed that as trainers we often break things, get stuck, and don't know how to do things with technology. That's all okay. What's important, however, is that we move forward, one step at a time. This session did wonders to bolster the group's confidence and alleviate their fear of technology.

As we addressed these two issues, and ran more relevant sessions designed to build confidence, we found that satisfaction went way up. Participants' body language changed completely, and the results they achieved and the satisfaction they reported were night and day from the early fall.

References
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Photo Credit:
Student sleeping: Gnurou, via Flickr, Creative Commons License

Connectivism Network

Our task this week is to create a Bubbl mind map for how we learn in order to examine our connectivist networks. I've chosen to focus on how I learn about education. Here is a look at how mine turned out:

With regards to this map, we're asked to answer the following three questions:

How has your network changed the way you learn?

To a degree, I think this question is a bit backwards. I think for my generation and learning habits, the question is more "How has the way I've learned changed my network?" It's somewhat of a chicken-and-egg type question, but for me, it's been more of a willful effort to change my network to be more engaged and connected. Connectivism doesn't come naturally to me. I'm much more cognitive and constructivist by nature.

So for me, it's taken determined efforts at engaging in social media and internet forums. The network didn't change me, I changed and adapted to the network.

Having said that, compared to four or five years ago, I'm much more of a connectivist learner than I ever imagined. I keep abreast of developments in education and educational technology through Twitter, am highly involved in our Innovation Forum (all are welcome to join) at work, where several dozen active posters share and develop new ideas on education 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I use Google Docs to share, edit, revise, and collaborate on projects. It's been an amazing transformation for me over the past three years, and I feel more connected, faster at learning, and filled with information than I did at any point in my past.

Which digital tools best facilitate learning for you?

In the past two years, I've been amazed at the efficiency of two tools: Twitter and our Innovation Forum. I love to follow the Twitter #edtech and #edchat hashtags. I can spend about 30 minutes there a day and learn so much about what is developing in education and educational technology. More so, I can engage in conversation about the news and ideas that I'm reading. I've started building a list of my favorite Tweeters. This is very much a work in progress, but I hope it develops into an even better source of information.

I also spend about two hours a week on our district's Innovation Forum. This is a digital version of Steven Johnson's collaborative tea houses, and it serves as a place for me to connect with other educators interesting in innovation. We share ideas, information, and half-ideas freely. We've had this running now for about two and a half years, and we now have more than 500 members and 6,000 posts.




How do you learn new knowledge when you have questions?

My first inclination is to "Google it." No matter how connected I am, I think my most efficient path to an answer is an effective Google search. Over the past ten years, I think that I've gotten much better at searching, and that searching has in itself gotten more efficient.

My second act would be to post on our innovation forum and ask if someone knows the answer there, although for specific questions I often have one or two people in mind who I know I can ask and get a good answer.

The caveat here, however, is that I am more likely to use digital resources for informational searches. For questions of a less well defined nature, I'm more likely to go to human resources directly. In other words, if I want to know good websites for learning javascript, I'll Google it. If I want to develop a plan for increasing our iPad usage in our District, I'm more likely to seek direct input from colleagues.

Lastly, I'm very interested in connecting with more educators. Follow me on Twitter (@MikeSmart) and I'll follow back!

Collaboration and Natural Instinct

Our topic for this week's blog post asks a fascinating question: Do you believe that humans have a basic instinct to interact and work as a group? Using the Tragedy of the Commons and the Prisoner's Dilemma as a base for individualistic activity, Rheingold (2008) makes a strong argument for the power of collaboration in his TED Talk on the same topic. He pulls in examples, such as Toyota's coaching of its suppliers and collaborative Bittorrent streams, to make the claim that collective action is growing in ways that increase the efficiency and productivity of individuals in groups.

To return to our question, however, as to whether humans have a basic instinct to interact and work as a group, I think that the answer is not a simple yes or no. I'd argue that humans have a basic instinct to socialize, and an extension of that socialization may be interaction as a group. However, I'd argue that humans also have a fundamental instinct to act in their own self interests, as evidenced by Rheingold's (2008) articulation of studies that show that humans will by and large desecrate common resources. To argue then, that interaction and cooperation are instinctive is clearly overstating the case. They are not.

Complicating this issue further is the role of groups in society. One could argue that mothers, for example, have an instinctive protective response for their children. Is this evidence of a basic instinct to interact, or is it an extension of the human need for survival?

Also, it's very easy to mash together words like cooperation, collaboration, and collective action into a stew where each term means the same thing. Using these terms interchangeably, however, muddies the issue. When we look at human interaction in more detail, we find that what is often termed as collaboration or cooperation, is in reality individuals each working alone to produce a collective product. Collective action is not the same thing as cooperation. Most examples that are touted as cooperation are in fact individual actions, cumulatively producing a product. For example, my direct supervisor loves to present a graphic on the construction of a modern aircraft as an example of cooperation and collaboration, where multiple entities work together to produce a plane. However, when you look at what actually happens, what you begin to realize is that it is in fact each company acting individually to produce a product that in turn gets assembled into a final product. Collective action, then, in most cases, is the sum of individual actions only thinly connected by any semblance of cooperation.

What is clear, however, is that there can be powerful benefits to times when groups truly cooperate. Anyone who has played on a sports team where the team must truly coordinate actions in order to succeed knows the true power and force of actual cooperation. Similarly, orchestras, where musical timing and a strong awareness of the group's actions are necessary to achieve success, must know the magic that lies in strong, interdependent group action.

What is remarkable now is the opportunity we have to cooperate and collaborate in ways that would have been unthinkable a mere ten years ago. Technology plays a big role in this enhanced collaboration. There are two ways this happens. First, technology now grants us connections to information and people that create an ease and opportunity for collaboration that greatly enhances its likelihood. If anyone remembers the early days of online video conferencing, for example, when good connections were extremely rare, and most conversations were like Maxwell Smart using the Cone of Silence, you can appreciate how much more communication and collaboration happens because video conferencing for the most part works now.

It's better now.

Second, technology also facilitates collaboration with its impressive array of tools for collaboration and sharing of content. The most pronounced example of this in our organization is the explosion in use of Google Docs that allows us to cooperatively create and share data to a degree unimaginable five years ago.

Research supports collaboration as an effective tool for learning in education, as evidenced by numerous studies. One such study (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008) highlights the power behind professional learning communities (PLCs) in educational settings. This meta-analysis of several studies on PLCs showed that PLCs have a positive impact on student learning.

References:
Rheingold, H. (2008, February). Howard Rheingold on collaboration [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), pp. 80-91. Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/dvK2P

Photo Attribution:
Yuan2003, via flickr, Creative Commons. Thanks!

Cognitivism and Other Learning Theories

One of the current issues we're covering in our class on learning theories is whether one theory serves to explain learning more fully than the other theories. Is Constructivism, for example, better than Behaviorism in explaining how people learn? In particular, we're called to examine two blog posts this week that center on an educational debate among Bill Kerr, Karl Kapp, and Stephen Downes about Behaviorism and Cognitivism.

The first blog post bounces back and forth between attacks on Behaviorism and Cognitivism. These arguments use various examples such as nuclear reactor meltdowns and chess to substantiate arguments. At the end of the piece, Kerr (2007) offers the suggestion that various learning theories should be used as filters, not blinkers. Taking this argument a bit farther, Kapp (2007) in his blog post, argues that learning is a multi-faceted concept that doesn't fit into one learning theory.

I strongly agree with Kapp's (2007) conclusion that learning is a much more complex concept than it is usually given credit for in debates on learning theories. This would seem to me to be the heart of the issue. In the arguments on behaviorism versus cognitivism, for example, the learning situations given to support each author's argument would seem to be cherry-picked as examples of learning that are well explained by that particular theory. Instead, I'd suggest that we can think of learning theories as tools to be used dependent on the particular task at hand.

For example, in my Japanese classes, there are times when students need to build fundamental vocabulary skills. At this point, behaviorism works great to build and structure drill and reward type activities that help reinforce learning of memory-related concepts. As students learn more complex concepts, however, cognitivism plays a larger role. I must use schema, recycling, and strategies to develop more complex skills and knowledge. Lastly, as students move forward to the point where they are asked to create projects or solve less well defined problems, both constructivism and connectivism can play larger roles.

In short, Kapp's (2007) point is right on target that learning is too complex to fit into one theory. This would suggest that perhaps what is needed is not more discussion on learning theories. Instead, perhaps we should be focusing our efforts on categorizing the various forms of learning first.

References

Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/

Photo Credit:
CollegeDegrees360, via flickr Creative Commons license. Thanks!

Role of the Educator

Siemens (2008) argues that there have been three models proposed for the role of the educator in a networked world: master artist, network connector, and concierge. To these three he adds a fourth model, that of curator. Each of these models is subtlely different from the others, but all involve a role significantly different than the teacher as master performer, or the sage on the stage depiction of teachers so common ten years ago.

A master artist emphasizes a role that encourages students to emulate the performance of the teacher, yet still provides a model by which students can show their own work to the class. A network connector, on the other hand, gives an image of a point of access through which students can connect to other learning opportunities, but seems to minimize the potential of a teacher to actually teach content. In the concierge model, the teacher takes on more of a guidance element, with the implication that he or she will lead students to content and learning experiences tailored to their individual needs.

Siemens' (2008) own model offers some variations on the three previous models in that he argues that the teacher is more of a curator. In other words, in addition to a concierge function that guides students to high quality and meaningful content, the curator teacher can also teach and provide in-depth knowledge about a particular resource if a student needs it.

I like Siemens' curator model better than the concierge model, and the concierge model better than the network administrator model. In short, the curator role seems to imply a more active role for the teacher than that of a concierge, who merely can guide students to good content. And a concierge seems to imply a more active and engaged role than that of a network administrator, who merely presents content to students with little thought to quality and personalization. The master artist role, on the other hand, implies an active teacher who can share expertise on a subject and inspire students to learn. While I like Siemens' curator model better than the master artist model, I can see how in certain environments the master artist model could work.

Having said this, all four models fall short. I don't like the curator model because it implies that the learning is one-way. A curator can present information on a museum topic and capture the attention of museum attendees, but it strikes me as a one-direction experience. Learning today in a digital environment, however, should engage the students in activities higher up in Bloom's Taxonomy. A curator doesn't capture this feeling.

I'm not sure that I have a good alternative yet, but I do think that a model presented by Wagner (2012) offers a better picture. He argues that a teacher in today's digital world functions as a coach, providing instruction and activities to students as they strive to explore and learn in complex and engaging environments. I like this model better because the image of a coach strikes me as someone who provides opportunities and interesting activities to students, yet at the same time is there with them, side by side, helping them to succeed. It's engaging, fast-paced, and centered on the student's learning, not the teacher's presentational skills.

If you're interested in hearing more of Wagner, I've embedded a TED talk he recently gave on play, passion, and purpose.

   

References
Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/Paper105/Siemens.pdf

Wagner, Tony. (2012, December 11). Opening Keynote Speech. Speech presented at the TIES 2012 Educational Conference, Minneapolis, MN.


Photo Attribution
axlape, via flickr Creative Commons License. 

Test of a Flisti Poll Embed

Just testing out a free online polling tool called Flisti. Very quick, and no sign-ups required....

Is it inappropriate to read/text on an iPhone while you're on the toilet?

Yes

No

or View Results

Create your own poll at Flisti.com

Test of Podcast RSS Feed

Just a test file to see how a podcast feed works with Blogger.

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

Engaging Learners with New Strategies and Tools

I've embedded an interactive graphic organizer made with Prezi for this blog assignment. If you're not familiar with Prezi, there are just a couple of things to be aware of to view the organizer easily. Both the Reflection section and the Why/Benefits section of the assignment are inside the Prezi.

Recommended Viewing Instructions

1. Click on the arrow in the bottom middle of the Prezi to activate the organizer.
2. After you click on the main arrow, you'll see some more menu options appear. Click on the light gray "More" in the bottom right of the Prezi window, then select "Full Screen."
3. Click on the Arrow in the bottom middle of the screen to move through the graphic organizer.
4. To see it all, keep clicking until you see "The End."

Optional: (While in full screen mode, click on the "target circle" in the lower right (it's just to the left of "More") to zoom out and see the whole organizer at a glance.)

Thanks!

Engaging Learners with New Strategies and Tools on Prezi

Assessing Collaborative Efforts

Our blog assignment for this week asks some very interesting questions along the lines of how we should assess participation in a collaborative learning community.

My initial response to the question is along the lines of what Siemens (n.d.) argues, that participation implies effort and time involved in an activity, and that measures of participation such as time on task, frequency of posting, etc., can be tracked and assessed easily online more in terms of effort than of quality.

But I think to a degree this misses the point, and I think that a better question to ask is how do we go about assessing the quality of the collaborative input of an individual in a group. We've all been in groups where someone participates too much, dominates the conversation, or whose contributions to a project, if adopted, would actually end up making the project worse.

The reason education falls into the trap of assessing participation in collaborative efforts rather than quality of participation in collaborative efforts lies in the fact that education has a long history of being very good at assessing and measuring individual effort and quality, but largely has no idea how to go about measuring the quality of individual contributions to things like brainstorming sessions, or collaboratively written documents. In essence, I'd argue that vast majority of teachers would be overwhelmed if asked to measure individual contributions in a group.

First of all, it's extremely hard to do. As a Japanese teacher, I'd often ask students to give group performances, and it became clear early on that measuring an individual performance when five students are doing something at the same time was impossible for one person to do. In order to assess it properly, I'd have to record the event, then watch it five times, measuring each individual performance separately. The trickier part would come when one person's performance suffered because another person wasn't up to par. At times, it was like evaluating a wide receiver who caught no passes because his quarterback overthrew him ten times. What do you do then?

The answer to this, though, lies in efforts by education to be more purposeful in identifying the pieces that go into effective groups and then specifically teaching and measuring those skills. It's a tremendously overlooked field of research, with the well known Johnson and Johnson perhaps still at the forefront of this work. XteAchnology has a good article summing up the complexity of their work in dissecting the key elements of effective groups and coming up with ways of purposefully teaching and assessing collaborative skills and efforts. In recent years, more research and resources are available to teachers in the field on cooperative learning. The blog Teacher Reboot Camp, for example, has a great post listing a treasure trove of resources to learn more about cooperative learning.

But even if you teach group skills, the question that often comes up is what to do with the student who doesn't participate. In such cases, I think it's the responsibility of the teacher to get involved and discuss with the student his or her options. From a personal viewpoint, I don't think participation is negotiable, although as a teacher I would often make accommodations and do everything in my power to help the student build the skills to participate effectively and for the group to function well. Palloff & Pratt (2007) provide many examples of steps a teacher can take to monitor and build groups, such as encouraging neither too little or too much participation, etc. The bottom line, however, is that human beings need to function both individually and in groups, and participation in group projects that gets excused isn't doing anyone a favor.

References
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Siemens, G. (n.d.). Assessment of collaborative learning [vodcast]. Laureate Education. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4692780&Survey=1&47=6562140&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

Terrell, S. (2010, November 19). Cooperative learning: effective team work! 20+ resources. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://teacherbootcamp.edublogs.org/2010/11/19/cooperative-learning-effective-team-work-15-resources/

XteAchnology. (n.d.). Johnson and Johnson's thoughts on cooperative learning. Retrieved January 11, 2011, from http://www.teach-nology.com/currenttrends/cooperative_learning/johnson_and_johnson/

Quality Instructional Design for Online Courses
Video Presentation Storyboard

General Overview
The main goal of the video is to introduce various concepts of quality instructional design for online courses. The production will highlight several improvements in online content design and online course design that can improve student learning.

(1 minute, 30 seconds) Introduction and Overview
Sequence #1: Title (10 seconds)
Working Title: "Quality Instructional Design: The Fundamentals"
Overview: A Title
Method: Simple Title Screen and Text

Sequence #2: Introduction (20 seconds)
Overview: This section will present a historical perspective on education.
Method: My voiceover combined with a collage of educational screenshots.

Sequence #3: Educational Transformation (20 seconds)
Overview: This section will pull figures from various sources describing the growth in online learning as a reflection of the growth in the Internet and growth in Communication
Method: Facts and figures, with an animation of reflecting the growth in online learning.

Sequence #4: Introduction of Question (10 seconds)
Overview: This section poses the question "What are the critical factors in instructional design that lead to quality online learning experiences?" It will also pose the three tenets of the answer: design, content, and interface
Method: Simple Title Screen and Text

Sequence #5: Definition of Online Learning (30 seconds)
Overview: This section will define "online learning" as used in the presentation. It will highlight some of the aspects of online learning (100% online schools, supplementary courses, hybrid)
Method: Computer Animation (perhaps Flash or a video segment of a Prezi or Google Presentation)

(2 minutes) Content is King...
Sequence #1: Equivalency Theory (30 seconds)
Overview: This section will focus on the goal inherent in Simonson's Equivalency Theory, that online courses must be equal yet different than traditional courses.
Method: Simple Title Screen and Text.

Sequence #2: Bloom's Taxonomy & Relevance to Online Learning (30 seconds)
Overview: This section will present the challenge facing online courses. Online learning must drive us higher on Bloom's Taxonomy. Quizzing facts in an online environment, for example, is ineffective due to the fact that anyone can just look up the answers.
Method: Student Interview, simple graphics.

Sequence #3: Project-Based Learning & Challenge-Based Learning (1 minute)
Overview: This section will argue that project-based learning is an effective way to push students higher on Bloom's Taxonomy, and is an effective tool for online learning.
Method: Teacher Interview, Edutopia clip showing students engaged in project-based learning. Voiceover. Simple graphics.

(2 minutes) ...but Design is Key
Sequence #1: Design is Key Introduction (30 seconds)
Overview: This section will introduce the importance of design in online courses. It will present research showing its importance (research to still be done).
Method: Simple Title Screen and Text, Examples from Courses.

Sequence #2: Failures of Design Case Study (30 seconds)
Overview: This section will show how poor design impacts students learning by highlighting a case study of an ineffectively designed course.
Method: Online course screen capture video showing an example of a failure of design.

Sequence #3: Fundamentals of Instructional Design (1 minute)
Overview: This section will outline several elements of instructional design that can improve the quality of online courses. It will take about incorporating discussions, graphics, and a design framework to enhance student learning (research forthcoming).
Method: Simple Title Screen and Text, Examples from Courses.

(30 seconds) Conclusion
Sequence #1: Design is Key Introduction (1 minute)
Overview: This section will review the points made in the concepts and design section, pose questions surrounding what is left to learn regarding the creation of engaging online content.
Method: Not sure yet, perhaps a collage of happy student photos? Or a collage of technology-related photos focusing the viewer on the continuing rise in technology.


References
Christiansen, C., Johnson, C.W., & Horn, M. (2008). Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Simonson, M. (n.d.). Distance education: Higher education, K12, and the corporate world [vodcast]. Laureate Education. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4692780&Survey=1&47=6562140&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

Collaboration in Distance Education:

George Siemens (n.d.) argues that increased collaboration and communication are two elements that distance learning is utilizing to build a unique identity compared to face-to-face classes. While I agree that we often see increased communication in an online class—and there is much agreement on its importance—I'd on the other hand argue that by and large distance education has done a poor job of incorporating collaborative interaction into its educational experiences. I'd even go so far as to say that distance education has more obstacles to overcome than traditional classrooms when it comes to collaborative projects.

First off, consider some of the issues a teacher faces in setting up an collaborative project in an online class. Take a look at David Wetzel's solid post about some of the elements of online collaborative efforts, and you'll quickly see that setting up an online group project is every bit as complicated as that of a traditional classroom. However, in a traditional classroom, students generally show up, and if a student is present in class there are opportunities for both communication and collaboration. In an online platform, however, students can more easily vanish from group projects by not logging in or ignoring communication. When one considers that an online platform is more conducive to asynchronous learning, it makes it even more challenging to coordinate synchronous projects.

To give an idea of how young the concept of true collaboration is in online learning, I'd point you to this UMass Dartmouth blog post highlighting a online collaborative research effort between a professor and a student. The article in essence describes a collaborative writing project between a student and a professor. What strikes me as noteworthy is the fact that the organization thought that this was newsworthy event. If online collaboration were commonplace, this type of a story should be occurring every day throughout our educational institutions.

This doesn't mean that online collaboration can't happen, but it does mean that online programs have to be more aggressive in implementing collaborative tools like Google Docs for Education and in training teachers how to build and facilitate group meaningful group projects. If that happens, hopefully we'll begin to move towards a realization of the potential of online learning to facilitate true collaborative efforts.

References
Brady, J. (2010, December 16.) UMass Dartmouth online professor and student span distance for collaborative research success [Web log artilce]. Retrieved from: http://www.umassonlineblog.com/2010/12/16/umass-dartmouth-online-professor-and-student-span-distance-for-collaborative-research-success/

Siemens, G. (n.d.). The Future of Distance Education [vodcast]. Laureate Education. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4692780&Survey=1&47=6562140&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

Wetzel, D. (2010, December 17). Distance learning tips for online learning success [Web log article]. Retrieved from: http://www.suite101.com/content/distance-learning-tips-for-online-group-work-success-a322356