This past week in my distance education class we learned in and about Second Life. I first heard the buzz about Second Life when a branch president in Miami approached me about possibly doing some activities with young single adults within second life. He was considering buying real estate there and felt that there was significant opportunities to help build relationships between young adults. At the time I thought, "I have a hard enough time getting people gather together to meet in REAL life, why would I want to focus on this in a second life?
After class this past week, I have to confess that I still feel this way. It may just be that I came late to class, and so missed the part that would have convinced me. And I did think that the virtual "Sistine Chapel" was beautiful--but it could be just as beautiful as a learning object; I didn't see the value added by second life.
I can see the rationale that it provides a gathering place for people to meet who are separated by time and distance. But videoconferencing can do that as well, and for me to have the "avatar" VS a real person is distracting. If I can see video stream of the real person and get their real gestures, why go the avatar route?
There was a lot of discussion about the moral implications (e.g. people might exhibit more aberrant behavior in second life than in real life) but this was not a primary concern for me. If it was used in an educational way (as demonstrated by our guest instructor) I don't think much trouble would occur. The trouble would occur as one walks around in random places (and trouble occurs in real life when one walks around in random places).
Perhaps there are important implications for younger learrners--e.g. it might help them be more free in the learning, or it might be more interesting for them. I don't foreclose on the possibility of virtual worlds as educational tools; however, for the moment I say, "Second Life? ...Let's focus on real life!"
Showing posts with label distance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label distance. Show all posts
Friday, April 10, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
What if copyright was limited to 10 years?
At our distance education class this past week Carl Johnson from BYU copyright came and visited our class to discuss copyright issues and education. This had obvious implications for the course I'm taking in Open Education as well.
It was interesting to me that Carl seemed to promote the use of Creative Commons licenses and author rights. Although he was careful to say that he needed promote the interests of both authors and the university in general, he seemed to feel that a day of open-access was coming and that there are lots of benefits in this regard.
In the Open Ed class I was made aware of a comment by a member of BYU's legal counsel who said that on both professional and personal reasons he supported Creative Commons. I'm obviously spending too much time hanging out with open-access people but I started to wonder to myself, "What would happen if copyright was done away with?" Or, more practically, dramatically reduced?
For me as an author would I care? No--it seems doubtful that anything of value that I create will not be worthy guarding 10 years from now. But what if? What if I became like JK Rowling and came up with a slam dunk, home run of a story. How would JK Rowling feel if copyright ended after ten years. What would that mean?
So I could publish cheap versions of the Harry Potter books. That would be bad for JK Rowling (no longer receives royalties) and bad for the publisher (too much competition now). Would it wreck the brand of Harry Potter? Not likely. If somebody publishes Harry Potter 8 and it stinks, nobody will buy it. If on the other hand it is an amazing piece of work, I'd be grateful for new culture (though Ms. Rowling might not be).
What percentage of works are like mine, and what percentage are like Rowlings? An interesting finding by James Boyle in his book The Public Domain is the following: "We know that when U.S. copyright required renewal after twenty-eight years, about 85 percent of all copyright holders did not bother to renew."
Isn't that amazing! Boyle states that this can be viewed as an approximation of commercial viability. So if after 28 years people don't renew, it's likely that it wasn't worth it.
I wonder how many years copyright would need to be in place in order for half of people to bother renewing it. Let's suppose that it was ten years.
If that were the case, what if a mechanism was set in place so that copyright expired after ten years; however, those who wanted to renew could renew the copyright by paying a nominal (15$) fee. And they could renew it every 10 years until death. And as long as I'm proposing new policy, what if we made it so that nothing was copyrighted unless the author specifically asked for the copyright to be in place by affixing a little logo to the work.
Although others have pushed for a less radical solution, this is what I am proposing today. :)
This review of Lessig's book Remix also had some helpful insights for thinking about copyright.
It was interesting to me that Carl seemed to promote the use of Creative Commons licenses and author rights. Although he was careful to say that he needed promote the interests of both authors and the university in general, he seemed to feel that a day of open-access was coming and that there are lots of benefits in this regard.
In the Open Ed class I was made aware of a comment by a member of BYU's legal counsel who said that on both professional and personal reasons he supported Creative Commons. I'm obviously spending too much time hanging out with open-access people but I started to wonder to myself, "What would happen if copyright was done away with?" Or, more practically, dramatically reduced?
For me as an author would I care? No--it seems doubtful that anything of value that I create will not be worthy guarding 10 years from now. But what if? What if I became like JK Rowling and came up with a slam dunk, home run of a story. How would JK Rowling feel if copyright ended after ten years. What would that mean?
So I could publish cheap versions of the Harry Potter books. That would be bad for JK Rowling (no longer receives royalties) and bad for the publisher (too much competition now). Would it wreck the brand of Harry Potter? Not likely. If somebody publishes Harry Potter 8 and it stinks, nobody will buy it. If on the other hand it is an amazing piece of work, I'd be grateful for new culture (though Ms. Rowling might not be).
What percentage of works are like mine, and what percentage are like Rowlings? An interesting finding by James Boyle in his book The Public Domain is the following: "We know that when U.S. copyright required renewal after twenty-eight years, about 85 percent of all copyright holders did not bother to renew."
Isn't that amazing! Boyle states that this can be viewed as an approximation of commercial viability. So if after 28 years people don't renew, it's likely that it wasn't worth it.
I wonder how many years copyright would need to be in place in order for half of people to bother renewing it. Let's suppose that it was ten years.
If that were the case, what if a mechanism was set in place so that copyright expired after ten years; however, those who wanted to renew could renew the copyright by paying a nominal (15$) fee. And they could renew it every 10 years until death. And as long as I'm proposing new policy, what if we made it so that nothing was copyrighted unless the author specifically asked for the copyright to be in place by affixing a little logo to the work.
Although others have pushed for a less radical solution, this is what I am proposing today. :)
This review of Lessig's book Remix also had some helpful insights for thinking about copyright.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Instructional Design and the Family
At the end of class this past week, Charles Graham asked students to think about different structures that we've been given and to think of them in terms of facilitating learning. I have decided to focus on the family. In my family right now there is a mom, a dad and four children. So each of my children has two "teachers" and three "peers." This makes lots of opportunities for teacher-learner (parent-child) and learner-learner (sibling) interactions. Unlike a typical classroom, in which students shuffle from place to place, we are in a long-term learning relationship. This is important.
As I think about the students I teach here at BYU compared with students that I taught in Miami, I was probably able to teach individual Miami students better because (for most of the students) I had taught them for several years. So on average I knew my Miami students better than I knew my BYU students. And I believe knowing the person helps in teaching them. In this case, the family provides an opportunity for deep knowing of each other and for the potential for better teaching to take place as a result.
Shawn Cates also made a good point that families provide opportunities for collaborative learning. Another idea is that the family can provide a structure similar perhaps to an apprenticeship environment. Like the "Mayan Midwives" situated learning example, children have the opportunity to learn from their older siblings and parents.
Recently I read an article in which the author talked about how it was learning from an older sibling that made the difference for him. He wrote about some poor decisions he was making in his life, and when his older brother talked with him about it, he decided to make some changes. Although his parents had tried to get him to make these changes it was the influence of his sibling that made the difference.
As I think about the students I teach here at BYU compared with students that I taught in Miami, I was probably able to teach individual Miami students better because (for most of the students) I had taught them for several years. So on average I knew my Miami students better than I knew my BYU students. And I believe knowing the person helps in teaching them. In this case, the family provides an opportunity for deep knowing of each other and for the potential for better teaching to take place as a result.
Shawn Cates also made a good point that families provide opportunities for collaborative learning. Another idea is that the family can provide a structure similar perhaps to an apprenticeship environment. Like the "Mayan Midwives" situated learning example, children have the opportunity to learn from their older siblings and parents.
Recently I read an article in which the author talked about how it was learning from an older sibling that made the difference for him. He wrote about some poor decisions he was making in his life, and when his older brother talked with him about it, he decided to make some changes. Although his parents had tried to get him to make these changes it was the influence of his sibling that made the difference.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Thinking about interactions and OCW
Based on some feedback from Peter and Charles I have been thinking about different ways to situate my paper. Today I went back to some readings we had at the beginning of class to focus on how these frameworks could relate to OCW.
In 1989 Moore described three important kinds of interactions that take place in education. These interactions are the following: teacher-student, student-student and student-content. Anderson (2004) elaborates on these interactions, explaining that even if teachers and students are separated by distance they can still have rich interactions. Anderson also notes that the interactions amongst students are important because “the communication of an idea to other students…raises the interest and motivation of the interactors” (134). In a traditional sense, student-content interactions would consist of a student reading a textbook and responding to questions from the text. Although the value added by technology to the student-content interaction has been debated (Anderson, 2004), there are clearly more content options available to the typical student today than there were thirty years ago.
Open course ware has the potential to greatly expand these three types of interactions. Most OCW resources focus on the “student-content” interaction. Students can read syllabi and course assignments, and in some cases take online mastery quizzes. In isolated cases OCW providers have made efforts to facilitate ways for students to learn with other students. For example, at one point MIT created a discussion board that allowed students taking an open course to interact with other students taking the same course. However this attempt was not successful. Wiley (xxxx) has argued that had more effort been put into encouraging student interaction that the student-student interaction would have become a more vibrant part of the MIT OCW program.
While MIT, Yale, Carnegie Mellon and others OCW providers all allow students to interact with content; they do not provide any sort of interaction between students and teachers. A logical reason for this is the difficulty in scale. Two thousand people can all access the same online reading assignment at the same time; however, for a teacher to interact with 2,000 students would be much more difficult. Perhaps for this reason little OCW focuses on teacher-learner interaction.
Although institutions do not typically provide teacher-learner interactions, a few teachers have been experimenting with this type of open teaching. This would be where I could bridge into the paper.
What follows is probably beyond the scope of the paper I am working on at the present, but I think has interesting implications for another article I'd like to think about in the future. Anderson also points out two additional types of interaction: teacher-content and teacher-teacher. Open educational resources can also help facilitate these kinds of interactions. When multiple teachers open their content, and take the time to look at content that is openly available it increases the exposure teachers have to different kinds of content. For example, reading ten syllabi written by one’s peers could potentially improve one’s own syllabus. Similarly, as teachers are more open with their content teachers may be more able to easily identify teachers with whom they would be interested in communicating.
In 1989 Moore described three important kinds of interactions that take place in education. These interactions are the following: teacher-student, student-student and student-content. Anderson (2004) elaborates on these interactions, explaining that even if teachers and students are separated by distance they can still have rich interactions. Anderson also notes that the interactions amongst students are important because “the communication of an idea to other students…raises the interest and motivation of the interactors” (134). In a traditional sense, student-content interactions would consist of a student reading a textbook and responding to questions from the text. Although the value added by technology to the student-content interaction has been debated (Anderson, 2004), there are clearly more content options available to the typical student today than there were thirty years ago.
Open course ware has the potential to greatly expand these three types of interactions. Most OCW resources focus on the “student-content” interaction. Students can read syllabi and course assignments, and in some cases take online mastery quizzes. In isolated cases OCW providers have made efforts to facilitate ways for students to learn with other students. For example, at one point MIT created a discussion board that allowed students taking an open course to interact with other students taking the same course. However this attempt was not successful. Wiley (xxxx) has argued that had more effort been put into encouraging student interaction that the student-student interaction would have become a more vibrant part of the MIT OCW program.
While MIT, Yale, Carnegie Mellon and others OCW providers all allow students to interact with content; they do not provide any sort of interaction between students and teachers. A logical reason for this is the difficulty in scale. Two thousand people can all access the same online reading assignment at the same time; however, for a teacher to interact with 2,000 students would be much more difficult. Perhaps for this reason little OCW focuses on teacher-learner interaction.
Although institutions do not typically provide teacher-learner interactions, a few teachers have been experimenting with this type of open teaching. This would be where I could bridge into the paper.
What follows is probably beyond the scope of the paper I am working on at the present, but I think has interesting implications for another article I'd like to think about in the future. Anderson also points out two additional types of interaction: teacher-content and teacher-teacher. Open educational resources can also help facilitate these kinds of interactions. When multiple teachers open their content, and take the time to look at content that is openly available it increases the exposure teachers have to different kinds of content. For example, reading ten syllabi written by one’s peers could potentially improve one’s own syllabus. Similarly, as teachers are more open with their content teachers may be more able to easily identify teachers with whom they would be interested in communicating.
Follow up to assesment comment made by Dr. Howell
I was very interested in a particular comment made in passing by Dr. Howell when he visited our Distance Education class. The comment had to do assessment errors being made when teachers calculate final grades. The error come s as the various weighted components are put together. Dr. Howell said this was very common and given that I am prone to common mistakes, I thought that I might benefit from learning more about this. Dr. Howell was gracious enough to send me this article and recommended that I read it to find out if I was making errors. The article talks about four common errors that are made. These errors are the following:
(a) the Average Speed Error – this is named for the classic problem pertaining to how many hours a person drives if they drive for 60 mph for 120 miles and 30 mph for the second 120 miles. People logically make errors by not making sure the problem has the correct numerator and denominator. This error could introduced if tests are worth different amounts and this is not taken into account. I don’t think I have this problem.
(b) the Weight Problem—this is a problem that I did have, although I’m not sure what to do about it or how serious a problem it is. This problem has to do with not taking into account the standard deviation on one test versus another. For example, if one test has a standard deviation of 5 and a second has a standard deviation of 25 then the tests should be weighted differently.
(c) the Natural Variation Violation – this problem is introduced when a teacher calls any grade from 93-100 an “A” and then compiles grades together. Thus a person who got a “93” on each assignment would get the same grade as a person who got “100” on every assignment. This is also a problem I don’t have.
(d) the Mars Climate Orbiter Miscalculation. This is related to the “weight problem” and shows how to correct for it.
My grading metric is something like this:
Scripture Reading – 100 points
Weekly papers – 100 points
Attendance –100 points
Mid-Terms – 200 Points
Final – 200 Points
So there are a total of 700 points, and I add up all the points a student gets, divide it by 700 and that results in a percentage earned of total points.
94-100 A
90-93.9 A-
87-89.9 B+
83-86.9 B
And so forth.
I guess my main objection to the weight and mars climate problem is that they seem too close to grading on a curve. At least for the present I am not as concerned with how well one student does relative to another, but whether each individual can reach the target. In addition the necessary calculations to adjust for the weight problem are somewhat tricky and most students would perceive them to be unfair. Francis, the author of the article, addresses these concerns but his attempts to resolve them were unsatisfactory (at least for me). I still remember 10 years ago taking a religion class and being so angry that teacher insisted on grading on a curve where 20% of students got an A, 20% an A-, and so forth. Although I got an A in that class, I thought to myself, “God doesn’t grade on a curve. He sets criteria for each kingdom and if you meet the criteria, then you get in!”
I could see somebody responding to this statement by saying, “Sure, if you are an omniscient teacher, go ahead and do that, but if not, you should probably try another approach.” And that may have merit. I’m not saying that I completely reject the “weight” problem, but I did not see it as a problem. If I weight the final twice as heavily and a student does really well on the final, then in my view that should compensate for a poor score on the first exam, regardless of what the standard deviations were.
I look forward to learning more from Dr. Howell on this issue, because he doubtless has some insights that would help resolve my concerns on this matter.
(a) the Average Speed Error – this is named for the classic problem pertaining to how many hours a person drives if they drive for 60 mph for 120 miles and 30 mph for the second 120 miles. People logically make errors by not making sure the problem has the correct numerator and denominator. This error could introduced if tests are worth different amounts and this is not taken into account. I don’t think I have this problem.
(b) the Weight Problem—this is a problem that I did have, although I’m not sure what to do about it or how serious a problem it is. This problem has to do with not taking into account the standard deviation on one test versus another. For example, if one test has a standard deviation of 5 and a second has a standard deviation of 25 then the tests should be weighted differently.
(c) the Natural Variation Violation – this problem is introduced when a teacher calls any grade from 93-100 an “A” and then compiles grades together. Thus a person who got a “93” on each assignment would get the same grade as a person who got “100” on every assignment. This is also a problem I don’t have.
(d) the Mars Climate Orbiter Miscalculation. This is related to the “weight problem” and shows how to correct for it.
My grading metric is something like this:
Scripture Reading – 100 points
Weekly papers – 100 points
Attendance –100 points
Mid-Terms – 200 Points
Final – 200 Points
So there are a total of 700 points, and I add up all the points a student gets, divide it by 700 and that results in a percentage earned of total points.
94-100 A
90-93.9 A-
87-89.9 B+
83-86.9 B
And so forth.
I guess my main objection to the weight and mars climate problem is that they seem too close to grading on a curve. At least for the present I am not as concerned with how well one student does relative to another, but whether each individual can reach the target. In addition the necessary calculations to adjust for the weight problem are somewhat tricky and most students would perceive them to be unfair. Francis, the author of the article, addresses these concerns but his attempts to resolve them were unsatisfactory (at least for me). I still remember 10 years ago taking a religion class and being so angry that teacher insisted on grading on a curve where 20% of students got an A, 20% an A-, and so forth. Although I got an A in that class, I thought to myself, “God doesn’t grade on a curve. He sets criteria for each kingdom and if you meet the criteria, then you get in!”
I could see somebody responding to this statement by saying, “Sure, if you are an omniscient teacher, go ahead and do that, but if not, you should probably try another approach.” And that may have merit. I’m not saying that I completely reject the “weight” problem, but I did not see it as a problem. If I weight the final twice as heavily and a student does really well on the final, then in my view that should compensate for a poor score on the first exam, regardless of what the standard deviations were.
I look forward to learning more from Dr. Howell on this issue, because he doubtless has some insights that would help resolve my concerns on this matter.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Distance: Item Analysis
Item Analysis
I really enjoyed the readings by Scott Howell. I discovered that in some respects he is my boss as I teach a night class and he is apparently the director of night classes. One of the readings that I particularly enjoyed was “Improving Student Assessment—One Item at a Time.” I guess I liked it because it is something that I’ve been working on right now. I teach a Book of Mormon class this semester and I taught the same class this last semester. So I took “exam #2” from last semester and just completed doing an item analysis and test revision on that exam prior to administering exam #2 this year. Some of the things I specifically found were the same as mentioned by Scott in this article. One of these items was “distracter analysis.” I noticed that several of my questions had distracters that were completely ineffective—nobody was distracted by them! In addition I had several questions that had an item difficulty of 1.0, meaning that nobody got them wrong. I made some adjustments to my test to strengthen some distracters and eliminated some of the questions that were apparently too easy.
I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask Scott in our class. First, it seems to me that this article is mostly focused on norm-referenced tests. I’m wondering if I am trying to create a criterion test if he believes that I should still strive for item difficulty levels between .4 and .7, as well as a minimum discriminating power of .3.
I also want to learn more about what he terms a “test blueprint.” I am sure that I could benefit from such a product. I’m looking forward to hearing from Scott in class this next week.
I really enjoyed the readings by Scott Howell. I discovered that in some respects he is my boss as I teach a night class and he is apparently the director of night classes. One of the readings that I particularly enjoyed was “Improving Student Assessment—One Item at a Time.” I guess I liked it because it is something that I’ve been working on right now. I teach a Book of Mormon class this semester and I taught the same class this last semester. So I took “exam #2” from last semester and just completed doing an item analysis and test revision on that exam prior to administering exam #2 this year. Some of the things I specifically found were the same as mentioned by Scott in this article. One of these items was “distracter analysis.” I noticed that several of my questions had distracters that were completely ineffective—nobody was distracted by them! In addition I had several questions that had an item difficulty of 1.0, meaning that nobody got them wrong. I made some adjustments to my test to strengthen some distracters and eliminated some of the questions that were apparently too easy.
I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask Scott in our class. First, it seems to me that this article is mostly focused on norm-referenced tests. I’m wondering if I am trying to create a criterion test if he believes that I should still strive for item difficulty levels between .4 and .7, as well as a minimum discriminating power of .3.
I also want to learn more about what he terms a “test blueprint.” I am sure that I could benefit from such a product. I’m looking forward to hearing from Scott in class this next week.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Wikipedia -- blended learning
Even though I really like the idea of editing the Wikipedia entry for blended learning, I'm not sure I'm ready to take the whole thing on...I do think though that I could make some minor contributions to the article. One thing I would like to do is change the opening definition and replace it the definition given at the end of the article.
I also would like to add in a paragraph discussing the idea that blended learning is not about adding technology to existing F2F experiences to but fundamentally rethink how we go about teaching. To get into the idea that true blended learning has to do with thinking about what things work best in a F2F environment and what things work best at a distance.
I also wondered whether it would be efficacious to use how SLOAN defines blended learning.
I'm off to an interview!
WIKIPEDIA ENTRY BELOW
{{Cleanup|date=January 2007}}
'''Blended Learning ''' is the process of incorporating many different learning styles that can be accomplished through the use of 'blended' virtual and physical resources {{Fact|date=January 2009}}. Learning styles refer to the many ways in which people learn, through blended learning this can be accomplished by creating a variety of learning assignments and activities with the use of technology and instructor and peer interaction.
The instructor can also combine two or more methods of delivery of instruction. A typical example of the delivery method of blended learning would be a combination of technology-based materials and face-to-face sessions used together to present content. An instructor can begin a course with a well-structured introductory lesson in the classroom, and then to proceed follow-up materials online. The term can also be applied to the integration of [[e-learning]] with a [[Learning Management System]] using computers in a physical classroom, along with face-to-face instruction[http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/blended_learning/ Blended Learning: Using a Learning Management System Live in the Classroom, Tom Worthington, The Australian National University, 24 October 2008]. Guidance is suggested early in the process, to be faded as learners gain expertise (Kirschner, Clark and Sweller, 2006).
The role of the instructor is critical as this requires a transformation process to that of learning facilitator. Quite often, with the onslaught of baby boomers going back to school and pursuing higher education the skills required for technology use are limited. The instructor then finds him/herself more in the role of assisting the student with computer skills and applications, accessing the internet, and encouraging them to be independent learners. Blended learning takes time for both the instructor and learner to adapt to this relatively new concept in delivering instruction.
==Current usage of the term==
With today's prevalence of [[high technology]] in many countries, blended learning often refers specifically to the provision or use of resources which combine [[e-learning]] (electronic) or [[m-learning]] (mobile) with other educational resources. Some would claim that key blended-learning arrangements can also involve [[e-mentoring]] or e-tutoring. These arrangements tend to combine an electronic learning component with some form of human intervention, although the involvement of an e-mentor or an e-tutor does not necessarily need to be in the context of e-learning. E-mentoring or e-tutoring can also be provided as part of a "stand alone" ("un-blended") e-tutoring or e-mentoring arrangement.
Researchers Heinze and Procter have developed the following definition for Blended Learning in [[higher education]]:
:Blended Learning is learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning, and founded on transparent communication amongst all parties involved with a course. (Heinze, A. and C. Procter (2004). Reflections on the Use of Blended Learning. Education in a Changing Environment conference proceedings, University of Salford, Salford, Education Development Unit, Available on-line: [http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/ah_04.rtf http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/ah_04.rtf])
Some of the advantages of blended learning include; cost effectiveness for both the accrediting learning institution and the learner, accessibility to a post secondary education, and flexibility in scheduling and timetabling of course work. Some of the disadvantages may include; computer and internet access, limited knowledge in the use of technology, study skills, problems which are similar to those who would be entering a physical learning institution.
It should also be noted that some authors talk about "hybrid learning" (this seems to be more common in Northern American sources) or "mixed learning". However, all of these concepts broadly refer to the integration (the "blending") of e-learning tools and techniques.
== Blended Learning systems and Projects ==
The European Union's Socrates program is currently funding development of blended learning courses in nine less widely spoken European languages. The development projects, Tool for Online and Offline Language Learning [http://www.toolproject.eu/ TOOL] coordinated by the EuroEd Foundation, Iasi, Romania and Autonomous Language Learning [http://www.allproject.info/ ALL] coordinated by CNAI, Pamplona, Spain.
Each project is developing blended learning programs at A2 'Waystage' level in accordance with the competence descriptors defined in the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference).
ALL: Romanian, Turkish, Lithuanian, Bulgarian.
TOOL: Slovene, Dutch, Hungarian, Estonian, Maltese.
The development is large in terms of size and scope and in that these may well be the first Blended Learning courses available in these languages and represents a development for the application of modern communicative language learning techniques in these languages.
The course developments are undertaken by a development team, consisting of several partner institutions, from each country. These institutions include publically and privately funded Universities, and private language learning providers, plus consulting specialists.
Outside the academic sector, blended learning is being used in private companies, possibly because of the cost-benefits over traditional training, though no studies are available that show clear-cost savings. One of the earliest commercial offerings in the sector came from [http://www.virtual-college.co.uk Virtual College], who produced a blended learning NVQ system in early 1995.
Willow is another platform for creating blended learning courses [http://orestes.ii.uam.es:8080/willtools Willow]
Nvolve: http://www.nvolve.net is an approach that blends Classroom, Online and Mobile technologies
== See also ==
* [[Flexible Learning]]
* [[E-Learning]]
* [[M-learning]]
* [[Networked learning]]
* [[Virtual education]]
* [[Virtual University]]
* Negotiated learning [http://www.chester.ac.uk/pdu/ www.chester.ac.uk/pdu]
==References==
{{Reflist}}
==External links==
*[http://www.allproject.info/ "Autonomous Language Learning"] A European Union, government funded, education project to build blended learning language courses in European less taught languages (Turkish, Romanian, Bulgarian and Lithuanian)].
*[http://www.toolproject.eu/ "Tool for Online and Offline Language Learning"] A European Union, government funded, education project to build blended learning language courses in European less taught languages (Dutch, Estonian, Hungarian, Maltese, Slovene).
An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning, an official publication of the United States Distance Learning Association (http://www.usdla.org) that contains a section on blended learning. Free download available at: http://www.usdla.org/html/resources/2._USDLA_Instructional_Media_Selection_Guide.pdf
[[Category:Pedagogy]]
[[bg:Смесено обучение]]
[[ca:B-learning]]
[[cs:Blended learning]]
[[de:Integriertes Lernen]]
[[es:B-learning]]
[[ko:혼합형 학습]]
[[nl:Blended learning]]
[[no:Blended learning]]
[[pl:Blended learning]]
[[ro:Învăţare mixtă]]
[[sl:Kombinirano učenje]]
[[tr:Harmanlanmış öğrenme]]
I also would like to add in a paragraph discussing the idea that blended learning is not about adding technology to existing F2F experiences to but fundamentally rethink how we go about teaching. To get into the idea that true blended learning has to do with thinking about what things work best in a F2F environment and what things work best at a distance.
I also wondered whether it would be efficacious to use how SLOAN defines blended learning.
I'm off to an interview!
WIKIPEDIA ENTRY BELOW
{{Cleanup|date=January 2007}}
'''Blended Learning ''' is the process of incorporating many different learning styles that can be accomplished through the use of 'blended' virtual and physical resources {{Fact|date=January 2009}}. Learning styles refer to the many ways in which people learn, through blended learning this can be accomplished by creating a variety of learning assignments and activities with the use of technology and instructor and peer interaction.
The instructor can also combine two or more methods of delivery of instruction. A typical example of the delivery method of blended learning would be a combination of technology-based materials and face-to-face sessions used together to present content. An instructor can begin a course with a well-structured introductory lesson in the classroom, and then to proceed follow-up materials online. The term can also be applied to the integration of [[e-learning]] with a [[Learning Management System]] using computers in a physical classroom, along with face-to-face instruction[http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/blended_learning/ Blended Learning: Using a Learning Management System Live in the Classroom, Tom Worthington, The Australian National University, 24 October 2008]. Guidance is suggested early in the process, to be faded as learners gain expertise (Kirschner, Clark and Sweller, 2006).
The role of the instructor is critical as this requires a transformation process to that of learning facilitator. Quite often, with the onslaught of baby boomers going back to school and pursuing higher education the skills required for technology use are limited. The instructor then finds him/herself more in the role of assisting the student with computer skills and applications, accessing the internet, and encouraging them to be independent learners. Blended learning takes time for both the instructor and learner to adapt to this relatively new concept in delivering instruction.
==Current usage of the term==
With today's prevalence of [[high technology]] in many countries, blended learning often refers specifically to the provision or use of resources which combine [[e-learning]] (electronic) or [[m-learning]] (mobile) with other educational resources. Some would claim that key blended-learning arrangements can also involve [[e-mentoring]] or e-tutoring. These arrangements tend to combine an electronic learning component with some form of human intervention, although the involvement of an e-mentor or an e-tutor does not necessarily need to be in the context of e-learning. E-mentoring or e-tutoring can also be provided as part of a "stand alone" ("un-blended") e-tutoring or e-mentoring arrangement.
Researchers Heinze and Procter have developed the following definition for Blended Learning in [[higher education]]:
:Blended Learning is learning that is facilitated by the effective combination of different modes of delivery, models of teaching and styles of learning, and founded on transparent communication amongst all parties involved with a course. (Heinze, A. and C. Procter (2004). Reflections on the Use of Blended Learning. Education in a Changing Environment conference proceedings, University of Salford, Salford, Education Development Unit, Available on-line: [http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/ah_04.rtf http://www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/ah_04.rtf])
Some of the advantages of blended learning include; cost effectiveness for both the accrediting learning institution and the learner, accessibility to a post secondary education, and flexibility in scheduling and timetabling of course work. Some of the disadvantages may include; computer and internet access, limited knowledge in the use of technology, study skills, problems which are similar to those who would be entering a physical learning institution.
It should also be noted that some authors talk about "hybrid learning" (this seems to be more common in Northern American sources) or "mixed learning". However, all of these concepts broadly refer to the integration (the "blending") of e-learning tools and techniques.
== Blended Learning systems and Projects ==
The European Union's Socrates program is currently funding development of blended learning courses in nine less widely spoken European languages. The development projects, Tool for Online and Offline Language Learning [http://www.toolproject.eu/ TOOL] coordinated by the EuroEd Foundation, Iasi, Romania and Autonomous Language Learning [http://www.allproject.info/ ALL] coordinated by CNAI, Pamplona, Spain.
Each project is developing blended learning programs at A2 'Waystage' level in accordance with the competence descriptors defined in the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference).
ALL: Romanian, Turkish, Lithuanian, Bulgarian.
TOOL: Slovene, Dutch, Hungarian, Estonian, Maltese.
The development is large in terms of size and scope and in that these may well be the first Blended Learning courses available in these languages and represents a development for the application of modern communicative language learning techniques in these languages.
The course developments are undertaken by a development team, consisting of several partner institutions, from each country. These institutions include publically and privately funded Universities, and private language learning providers, plus consulting specialists.
Outside the academic sector, blended learning is being used in private companies, possibly because of the cost-benefits over traditional training, though no studies are available that show clear-cost savings. One of the earliest commercial offerings in the sector came from [http://www.virtual-college.co.uk Virtual College], who produced a blended learning NVQ system in early 1995.
Willow is another platform for creating blended learning courses [http://orestes.ii.uam.es:8080/willtools Willow]
Nvolve: http://www.nvolve.net is an approach that blends Classroom, Online and Mobile technologies
== See also ==
* [[Flexible Learning]]
* [[E-Learning]]
* [[M-learning]]
* [[Networked learning]]
* [[Virtual education]]
* [[Virtual University]]
* Negotiated learning [http://www.chester.ac.uk/pdu/ www.chester.ac.uk/pdu]
==References==
{{Reflist}}
==External links==
*[http://www.allproject.info/ "Autonomous Language Learning"] A European Union, government funded, education project to build blended learning language courses in European less taught languages (Turkish, Romanian, Bulgarian and Lithuanian)].
*[http://www.toolproject.eu/ "Tool for Online and Offline Language Learning"] A European Union, government funded, education project to build blended learning language courses in European less taught languages (Dutch, Estonian, Hungarian, Maltese, Slovene).
An Instructional Media Selection Guide for Distance Learning, an official publication of the United States Distance Learning Association (http://www.usdla.org) that contains a section on blended learning. Free download available at: http://www.usdla.org/html/resources/2._USDLA_Instructional_Media_Selection_Guide.pdf
[[Category:Pedagogy]]
[[bg:Смесено обучение]]
[[ca:B-learning]]
[[cs:Blended learning]]
[[de:Integriertes Lernen]]
[[es:B-learning]]
[[ko:혼합형 학습]]
[[nl:Blended learning]]
[[no:Blended learning]]
[[pl:Blended learning]]
[[ro:Învăţare mixtă]]
[[sl:Kombinirano učenje]]
[[tr:Harmanlanmış öğrenme]]
Published Review of Disrupting Class
I am happy to report that a review I wrote of Disrupting Class by Clayton Christensen, Michael Horn and Curtis Johnson has been published by Education Review. You can find it here. Special thanks to my distance education class--this would not have happened without the class.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Distance: Blended Learning #2
I wanted to take what was discussed in class tonight and think about how I could apply it to myself, in my teaching situation. Right now I teach Religion 122. How could I create an effective blended course--how could I maximize the use of technology and F2F to create the best possible classroom?
Obviously the answer to this question will very much depend on what kind of students I have. But lets suppose I have a homogeneous group of students who are interested in getting the most they can from the Book of Mormon and also have decent technical skills.
First, what could I do?
1. Create audio and/or video podcasts of the class so that students could re-listen to/watch the class if they wanted to.
2. Find ways for them to post their work (principles/one-liners/patterns they discovered) and comment on what their classmates are doing).
3. Make course readings/powerpoints/ available on Bboard for students to review if they desire.
4. Have Bboard quizzes available to take for each class period so that they could test their knowledge of whether they are picking up key points from the reading (these could be graded or non-graded).
5. Other supplemental reading/videos on Blackboard.
One of the disadvantages of asynchronous communication is that you can't see how long I have sat here trying to brainstorm possibilities. I know I should easily be able to come up with more, but I am just not thinking of them at the moment. Feel free to add some in.
Of the above five choices, I currently only do #3. I believe that 1-2, 4-5 would increase the effectiveness of the course, but would require more resources than I can currently dedicate to the course. If I felt confident that they would make a significant difference, I would be more willing to put in the effort.
As I re-read these ideas I think that I should probably try an experiment in a future semester, in which I implement these strategies and see if there is a difference in the class.
Other suggestions?
Obviously the answer to this question will very much depend on what kind of students I have. But lets suppose I have a homogeneous group of students who are interested in getting the most they can from the Book of Mormon and also have decent technical skills.
First, what could I do?
1. Create audio and/or video podcasts of the class so that students could re-listen to/watch the class if they wanted to.
2. Find ways for them to post their work (principles/one-liners/patterns they discovered) and comment on what their classmates are doing).
3. Make course readings/powerpoints/ available on Bboard for students to review if they desire.
4. Have Bboard quizzes available to take for each class period so that they could test their knowledge of whether they are picking up key points from the reading (these could be graded or non-graded).
5. Other supplemental reading/videos on Blackboard.
One of the disadvantages of asynchronous communication is that you can't see how long I have sat here trying to brainstorm possibilities. I know I should easily be able to come up with more, but I am just not thinking of them at the moment. Feel free to add some in.
Of the above five choices, I currently only do #3. I believe that 1-2, 4-5 would increase the effectiveness of the course, but would require more resources than I can currently dedicate to the course. If I felt confident that they would make a significant difference, I would be more willing to put in the effort.
As I re-read these ideas I think that I should probably try an experiment in a future semester, in which I implement these strategies and see if there is a difference in the class.
Other suggestions?
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Distance: Blended Learning
At the beginning of our distance course we were given the premise that distance learning should not just be different than, or as good as F2F learning, but that it should be better. In an article on Blended Learning, Garrison believes that blended learning can accomplish this. He states that the challenge of blended learning is not just to add technology to existing F2F experiences to but fundamentally rethink how we go about teaching. He states that some kinds of learning take place better in asynchronous environments. For example, he thinks that dialogue can be improved in some ways if it is written asynchronously (providing reflection time). Building sociality perhaps is done better face to face. With blended learning we have the opportunity to critically think about what really promotes learning and design a system where this takes place. I've only done this first reading so far, but I look forward to studying blended learning more.
Two thoughts that I had after reading the article--one was to read what wikipedia has to say about blended learning. From what I read, I thought a fun class project might be to update the wikipedia entry.
A second thought I had was that it is a little surprising if, as Garrison says, blended learning is "inevitable" that I have experienced so little blended learning in my Ph.D program, in a fairly progessive department. I'm not saying this to be critical of the theory, nor the department, I just think that this illustration shows that it may be more complex to do blended learning right than first meets the eye. More posts on this topic to come.
Two thoughts that I had after reading the article--one was to read what wikipedia has to say about blended learning. From what I read, I thought a fun class project might be to update the wikipedia entry.
A second thought I had was that it is a little surprising if, as Garrison says, blended learning is "inevitable" that I have experienced so little blended learning in my Ph.D program, in a fairly progessive department. I'm not saying this to be critical of the theory, nor the department, I just think that this illustration shows that it may be more complex to do blended learning right than first meets the eye. More posts on this topic to come.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thoughts on visit with Dr. Barbour
We had a successful online meeting with Dr. Michael Barbour at our distance education class. I had read some of his work before so I felt pretty excited for the opportunity. I hadn't thought very much about distance and K-12 education, but this is obviously a fruitful field. He gave us a brief history of things likek-12 online learning started in 1997; the first was was the F virtual school—used with state allocated funds.
We also discussed the difference between a "virtual school" (supplemental program, district/state based) and a "cyber school" (usually a district-based school, created under charter legislation).
We also discussed the difference between a "virtual school" (supplemental program, district/state based) and a "cyber school" (usually a district-based school, created under charter legislation).
Cyber charter schools have 70-80 kids per teacher, they use a model that the parent is considered one of the teacher and provides the primary instructional role. The cyber school providers the content, technology, a grader and a tutor.
An exciting part of the class (for me) had to do with a discussion Disrupting Class. Barbour has blogged extensively about this book, and I have written a humble review of it for Education Review. It appears that we had different views of the book :) I also later discovered that Jeb Bush (governor of FL, home of the first online school) is reading Disrupting Class, and apparently likes it. --no intent is given to state that Jeb Bush's reading materials do or do not merit endorsement.--
Another interesting thing we discussed is that there is no statistically significance in student performance in the F2F VS online courses. In fact, he seemed to think that perhaps only the “better” students are taking the online courses, in which case it might skew these results. In one case study he referenced those in the online classes got 11% lower grades than their f2f counterparts.
He pointed out that a lot of the distance learning strategies are built on learning for adults, which may be different from the learning style of adolescents. I think this is an important thing to think about as I try to create resources for youth - to study carefully about the ways in which they think and learn.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Virtual Schools
--note-- this was written and published yesterday, but to the wrong blog--
Tom Clark's chapter on "Virtual and Distance Education in North American Schools" reinforced the idea that distance education is important, not just at the university level, or even high school level, but throughout all of school. It was interesting to see how over the past 80 years various forms of virtual schools have taken place, with a variety of technologies. Clark reports that there "were about 300,000 K-12 online-learning enrollments in public and private schools in 2002-2003, up from an estimated 40-50,000 in 2000-2001. That is amazing growth!
Some of what I read reminded me of Clayton Christensen's Disrupting Class.
Christensen and his coauthors state that a key problem in schools is students learn in different ways and that schools are not built to customize student learning to the different needs that students have. The authors argue that disruptively deploying computer-based innovations is a key to customize educational resources for students. They state, “student-centric learning is the escape hatch from the…hierarchical cells of standardization. The software is emerging. Student-centric learning opens the door for students to learn in ways that match their intelligence types in the places and at the paces they prefer by combining content in customized sequences” (38-39).
Their point is not that more computers are needed, but that computers need to be used differently. For example, consider a class in Arabic. Because the class is not offered, nobody takes the class. Through the use of video conferencing, a class in Arabic could be offered to interested students. In addition, video conferencing could allow students to be paired up with peer learners in Arabic speaking countries who are trying to learn English. Although the quality of this type of educational opportunity might not be as good as a live classroom (at first), it is better than the alternative (no Arabic instruction). Over time, as the technology improves, it is conceivable that this form of education could become as efficacious as face to face classroom instruction.
Christensen predicts that by 2020 a majority of high school students will be in "virtual schools." Looking at the graphs presented by Clark it seemed to me that the growth that has been shown in virtual schooling could continue to dramatically increase. As technology improves and access increases it may become an increasingly attractive choice.
The Open High School of Utah could be an interseting labratory in which to study a "virtual high school" in our own backyward.
Tom Clark's chapter on "Virtual and Distance Education in North American Schools" reinforced the idea that distance education is important, not just at the university level, or even high school level, but throughout all of school. It was interesting to see how over the past 80 years various forms of virtual schools have taken place, with a variety of technologies. Clark reports that there "were about 300,000 K-12 online-learning enrollments in public and private schools in 2002-2003, up from an estimated 40-50,000 in 2000-2001. That is amazing growth!
Some of what I read reminded me of Clayton Christensen's Disrupting Class.
Christensen and his coauthors state that a key problem in schools is students learn in different ways and that schools are not built to customize student learning to the different needs that students have. The authors argue that disruptively deploying computer-based innovations is a key to customize educational resources for students. They state, “student-centric learning is the escape hatch from the…hierarchical cells of standardization. The software is emerging. Student-centric learning opens the door for students to learn in ways that match their intelligence types in the places and at the paces they prefer by combining content in customized sequences” (38-39).
Their point is not that more computers are needed, but that computers need to be used differently. For example, consider a class in Arabic. Because the class is not offered, nobody takes the class. Through the use of video conferencing, a class in Arabic could be offered to interested students. In addition, video conferencing could allow students to be paired up with peer learners in Arabic speaking countries who are trying to learn English. Although the quality of this type of educational opportunity might not be as good as a live classroom (at first), it is better than the alternative (no Arabic instruction). Over time, as the technology improves, it is conceivable that this form of education could become as efficacious as face to face classroom instruction.
Christensen predicts that by 2020 a majority of high school students will be in "virtual schools." Looking at the graphs presented by Clark it seemed to me that the growth that has been shown in virtual schooling could continue to dramatically increase. As technology improves and access increases it may become an increasingly attractive choice.
The Open High School of Utah could be an interseting labratory in which to study a "virtual high school" in our own backyward.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Distance: Field Trip
This past week my "Distance Education" class took a field trip to BYU's Independent study center. The size and scope of their business surprised me. Some of the things that stood out to me are below:
I also was reminded of how widely learning styles can differ. When it came to a discussion of "religious education" my views about how learning should take place came on somewhat strongly. But others at the table had their own views that they held equally strongly. So again the theme came back to having as many different approaches as possible so that people could select what was good for them as opposed to "the one true way."
(As I write that it makes me think how the "do whatever works for you" as opposed to "the one true way" philosophy isn't always a good idea.
Another thing that interested me was that they allow people to get their money back up to 60 days after beginning the course. So in terms of thinking about the "free" courses they are going to offer, what is the difference between letting them do the course for free VERSUS signing up for the course in the regular way and quitting after 25 days. Still was free.
The difference I see is that the "open" option allows them to be free as in "I don't have to give you my credit card info." I think one interesting thing to look at as this project moves forward is to see how many people sign up for the course because it was free. Obviously the hope is that people who would have never paid money upfront for the course do take it for free, and some buy it. I look forward to Chris Anderson's book on this topic.
- They serve about 125,000 students and employ 250 people (I may be off a bit on my numbers, feel free to correct me).
- Most of the students they serve are _high school_ students
- They have a team that aggressively markets IS courses to school districts (e.g. they are not just sitting around hoping that somebody finds their course).
- They receive about 2,000 help calls a day, and have multiple tiers of service. Only 1% of problems need to go to the professor for resolution.
- As part of a research study a few years ago they implemented the idea of having tutors who provide a free (to students) service of helping them with problems.
- They have a machine that opens their envelopes! (okay, that wasn't the highlight, but it was pretty cool). ]
I also was reminded of how widely learning styles can differ. When it came to a discussion of "religious education" my views about how learning should take place came on somewhat strongly. But others at the table had their own views that they held equally strongly. So again the theme came back to having as many different approaches as possible so that people could select what was good for them as opposed to "the one true way."
(As I write that it makes me think how the "do whatever works for you" as opposed to "the one true way" philosophy isn't always a good idea.
Another thing that interested me was that they allow people to get their money back up to 60 days after beginning the course. So in terms of thinking about the "free" courses they are going to offer, what is the difference between letting them do the course for free VERSUS signing up for the course in the regular way and quitting after 25 days. Still was free.
The difference I see is that the "open" option allows them to be free as in "I don't have to give you my credit card info." I think one interesting thing to look at as this project moves forward is to see how many people sign up for the course because it was free. Obviously the hope is that people who would have never paid money upfront for the course do take it for free, and some buy it. I look forward to Chris Anderson's book on this topic.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
distance: 10 articles finding
Articles from International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning
As I looked for themes this week, one of the things that I learned was something about how I value and rank research findings. I noticed that tend to value more highly research that is experimental and concrete in nature. I place less value on historical or theoretical discussions—when it comes to research findings.
A couple of themes I found are as follows:
Of the 11 articles I read,
3 used extensive qualitative data
4 used extensive quantitative data
4 specifically listed limitations
I was surprised that more did not discuss the limitations of the article, and at how many used no “new” qualitative or quantitative data (I did not count literature review as qualitative data).
An article-by-article review follows.
1. Annand, D. (2007). Re-organizing Universities for the Information Age. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3), 1-9.
Finding(s):
As this is a theoretical paper there are no official “findings.” The author does however give a “prognosis” that in order to stay relevant and viable higher education will need to adapt their educational methods and procedures. I rate this “prognosis/finding” a 3 because although it is interesting and somewhat well-supported, there are no specific findings to back up the assertion.
2. Barnard, L., Paton, V., & Lan, W. (2008). Online Self-Regulatory Learning Behaviors as a Mediator in the Relationship between Online Course Perceptions with Achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2).
Finding(s):
The authors found that “while online self-regulatory learning behaviors do not appear to be that strongly associated with academic achievement, self-regulatory learning behaviors do appear to mediate and account for a significant amount of the positive relationship between student perceptions of online course communication and collaboration with academic achievement” (8). More simply we could state that as students increase in their self-regulation they tend to be more likely to communicate well at a distance, which affects their achievement. I rate this finding a 6 because it helps tease out exactly in what ways self-regulation affects grades.
3. Bray, E., Aoki, K., & Dlugosh, L. (2008). Predictors of Learning Satisfaction in Japanese Online Distance Learners. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).
Finding(s):
The authors found that the students they surveyed were satisfied with their distance learning experiences. They also found that people who felt comfortable using a computer were more likely to enjoy distance courses and that people who had a high preference for social interaction in learning were less likely to enjoy distance courses. They also found that students with teachers they ranked as easier to interact with were more satisfied with the course. I rank these findings a 6. The analysis and statistical manipulations were extensive and rigorous; however, because their sample was based on volunteers it is unclear how widely these results could be extrapolated.
4. Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open Educational Resources: Enabling universal education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1).
Finding(s):
This theoretical article did not offer anything by way of experimental findings. They state that for open educational resources to continue that they need to be self-sustaining. I did not find this to be a very novel finding, hence its rating of a 3. I did enjoy the review of OERs and have cited this article; however in terms of findings it is not very strong.
5. Deka, T. S., & McMurry, P. (2006). Student Success in Face-To-Face and Distance Teleclass Environments: A matter of contact? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).
Finding(s):
The researchers found that “F2F students were significantly more successful than distance students, obtaining a higher percentage of A, B, and C grades” (11). They found that the main reason why F2F students did better is that they were much more likely to take all the exams. Completion was a major factor in lowering the grades of the distance students. Although this research may be old-hat to some, I thought it was significant and that the study was well-designed. I rate this study a 7.
6. Eib, B. J., & Miller, P. (2006). Faculty Development as Community Building. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(2).
Finding(s):
Although this what not a research paper, the authors did give a fairly detailed explanation of what they did and included several quotations from participants to support their assertion that it was a positive experience. It could have been stronger had they compared people who participated in the faculty development with those who did not, but given the limitations it seems that they did what they could. The other weakness was that the researchers themselves were heavily involved in faculty development so I wondered if there was a researcher bias. I would rate these findings a 4.
7. Grandzol, C. J., & PhD, J. R. G. (2006). Best Practices for Online Business Education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).
Finding(s):
These researchers state that “the process of developing online courses requires faculty to do more than just try to duplicate the classroom online. Faculty must transform instruction, requiring fundamental rethinking of how to achieve learning objectives given the opportunities and limitations of the online environment…the evidence is overwhelming that online education tends to be as effective or more effective than traditional delivery” (8). In some respects this assertion goes contrary to Eib article mentioned above. I believe that the authors of the present study are trying to say that distance education, done properly, with students who are prepared for the experience, can be more effective. The authors have reviewed dozens of articles in order to determine what it would take to have the most effective distance education and gave 33 concrete descriptions of desired practice. Although they did not do their own experimental research they clearly surveyed the data. I would rate these findings a 7 because they have practical value and relevant application to me.
8. Leslie, P. H., & Murphy, E. (2008). Post-Secondary Students' Purposes For Blogging. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).
Finding(s):
Because only 8 of the 266 of the blogs analyzed met the criteria for inclusion in this research study I would rate their findings a 4, simply because I cannot tell how much they can be generalized. The authors state that the bloggers they studied seldom challenged ideas, and did not engage in knowledge construction; however there was little discussions as to why this was the case. The authors were frank about the limitations of their study, and I did admire them for upfront about those limitations.
9. Müller, T. (2008). Persistence of Women in Online Degree-Completion Programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2).
Finding(s):
The authors found that the main facilitating factors for women in completing online degree programs were (1) engagement in a learning community, (2) schedule convenience, and (3) opportunities for personal growth. The three largest barriers were (1) juggling multiple responsibilities (e.g. working, mothering, etc.), (2) disappointment in faculty, and (3) face-to-face preference. Although their sample of twenty students does not allow for widespread generalization of results, hearing the voices of these women students was quite powerful. I rank this study a 6 due to its comprehensive discussion of factors experiences by these women.
10. Pan, G., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). The Emergence of Open-Source Software in North America. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3).
Finding(s):
As with number 4, above, this historical article did not offer anything by way of experimental findings. One interesting thought that they shared (though it could not be considered a finding) is the idea of a “gift culture.” When people create open resources and give them away for others to build on, it changes the dynamics of the educational resource as well as the relationships amongst those who use the resource. Although I liked the article I rated the findings a 3 because they did not appear to present any kind of new research to the field.
11. Shachar, M. (2008). Meta-Analysis: The preferred method of choice for the assessment of distance learning quality factors. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).
Finding(s):
Although the author is clearly passionate about the importance of meta-analysis there was little research showing that it was clearly the best method to use (perhaps a meta-analysis of meta-analytical studies would have been in order!) This is more of a “how-to” article as the author explains how to conduct a meta-analysis. If my goal were to do a meta-analysis I would rank the article a 5 (had it been more plain it would have received a higher ranking). However, if the goal is do present research findings I would rate it a 3 because there was little evidence to back up the claim that meta-analysis is the direction distance research should go. I do not necessarily disagree with the claim, there simply was little evidence of it presented.
As I looked for themes this week, one of the things that I learned was something about how I value and rank research findings. I noticed that tend to value more highly research that is experimental and concrete in nature. I place less value on historical or theoretical discussions—when it comes to research findings.
A couple of themes I found are as follows:
Of the 11 articles I read,
3 used extensive qualitative data
4 used extensive quantitative data
4 specifically listed limitations
I was surprised that more did not discuss the limitations of the article, and at how many used no “new” qualitative or quantitative data (I did not count literature review as qualitative data).
An article-by-article review follows.
1. Annand, D. (2007). Re-organizing Universities for the Information Age. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3), 1-9.
Finding(s):
As this is a theoretical paper there are no official “findings.” The author does however give a “prognosis” that in order to stay relevant and viable higher education will need to adapt their educational methods and procedures. I rate this “prognosis/finding” a 3 because although it is interesting and somewhat well-supported, there are no specific findings to back up the assertion.
2. Barnard, L., Paton, V., & Lan, W. (2008). Online Self-Regulatory Learning Behaviors as a Mediator in the Relationship between Online Course Perceptions with Achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2).
Finding(s):
The authors found that “while online self-regulatory learning behaviors do not appear to be that strongly associated with academic achievement, self-regulatory learning behaviors do appear to mediate and account for a significant amount of the positive relationship between student perceptions of online course communication and collaboration with academic achievement” (8). More simply we could state that as students increase in their self-regulation they tend to be more likely to communicate well at a distance, which affects their achievement. I rate this finding a 6 because it helps tease out exactly in what ways self-regulation affects grades.
3. Bray, E., Aoki, K., & Dlugosh, L. (2008). Predictors of Learning Satisfaction in Japanese Online Distance Learners. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).
Finding(s):
The authors found that the students they surveyed were satisfied with their distance learning experiences. They also found that people who felt comfortable using a computer were more likely to enjoy distance courses and that people who had a high preference for social interaction in learning were less likely to enjoy distance courses. They also found that students with teachers they ranked as easier to interact with were more satisfied with the course. I rank these findings a 6. The analysis and statistical manipulations were extensive and rigorous; however, because their sample was based on volunteers it is unclear how widely these results could be extrapolated.
4. Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open Educational Resources: Enabling universal education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1).
Finding(s):
This theoretical article did not offer anything by way of experimental findings. They state that for open educational resources to continue that they need to be self-sustaining. I did not find this to be a very novel finding, hence its rating of a 3. I did enjoy the review of OERs and have cited this article; however in terms of findings it is not very strong.
5. Deka, T. S., & McMurry, P. (2006). Student Success in Face-To-Face and Distance Teleclass Environments: A matter of contact? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).
Finding(s):
The researchers found that “F2F students were significantly more successful than distance students, obtaining a higher percentage of A, B, and C grades” (11). They found that the main reason why F2F students did better is that they were much more likely to take all the exams. Completion was a major factor in lowering the grades of the distance students. Although this research may be old-hat to some, I thought it was significant and that the study was well-designed. I rate this study a 7.
6. Eib, B. J., & Miller, P. (2006). Faculty Development as Community Building. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(2).
Finding(s):
Although this what not a research paper, the authors did give a fairly detailed explanation of what they did and included several quotations from participants to support their assertion that it was a positive experience. It could have been stronger had they compared people who participated in the faculty development with those who did not, but given the limitations it seems that they did what they could. The other weakness was that the researchers themselves were heavily involved in faculty development so I wondered if there was a researcher bias. I would rate these findings a 4.
7. Grandzol, C. J., & PhD, J. R. G. (2006). Best Practices for Online Business Education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(1).
Finding(s):
These researchers state that “the process of developing online courses requires faculty to do more than just try to duplicate the classroom online. Faculty must transform instruction, requiring fundamental rethinking of how to achieve learning objectives given the opportunities and limitations of the online environment…the evidence is overwhelming that online education tends to be as effective or more effective than traditional delivery” (8). In some respects this assertion goes contrary to Eib article mentioned above. I believe that the authors of the present study are trying to say that distance education, done properly, with students who are prepared for the experience, can be more effective. The authors have reviewed dozens of articles in order to determine what it would take to have the most effective distance education and gave 33 concrete descriptions of desired practice. Although they did not do their own experimental research they clearly surveyed the data. I would rate these findings a 7 because they have practical value and relevant application to me.
8. Leslie, P. H., & Murphy, E. (2008). Post-Secondary Students' Purposes For Blogging. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).
Finding(s):
Because only 8 of the 266 of the blogs analyzed met the criteria for inclusion in this research study I would rate their findings a 4, simply because I cannot tell how much they can be generalized. The authors state that the bloggers they studied seldom challenged ideas, and did not engage in knowledge construction; however there was little discussions as to why this was the case. The authors were frank about the limitations of their study, and I did admire them for upfront about those limitations.
9. Müller, T. (2008). Persistence of Women in Online Degree-Completion Programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2).
Finding(s):
The authors found that the main facilitating factors for women in completing online degree programs were (1) engagement in a learning community, (2) schedule convenience, and (3) opportunities for personal growth. The three largest barriers were (1) juggling multiple responsibilities (e.g. working, mothering, etc.), (2) disappointment in faculty, and (3) face-to-face preference. Although their sample of twenty students does not allow for widespread generalization of results, hearing the voices of these women students was quite powerful. I rank this study a 6 due to its comprehensive discussion of factors experiences by these women.
10. Pan, G., & Bonk, C. J. (2007). The Emergence of Open-Source Software in North America. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3).
Finding(s):
As with number 4, above, this historical article did not offer anything by way of experimental findings. One interesting thought that they shared (though it could not be considered a finding) is the idea of a “gift culture.” When people create open resources and give them away for others to build on, it changes the dynamics of the educational resource as well as the relationships amongst those who use the resource. Although I liked the article I rated the findings a 3 because they did not appear to present any kind of new research to the field.
11. Shachar, M. (2008). Meta-Analysis: The preferred method of choice for the assessment of distance learning quality factors. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3).
Finding(s):
Although the author is clearly passionate about the importance of meta-analysis there was little research showing that it was clearly the best method to use (perhaps a meta-analysis of meta-analytical studies would have been in order!) This is more of a “how-to” article as the author explains how to conduct a meta-analysis. If my goal were to do a meta-analysis I would rank the article a 5 (had it been more plain it would have received a higher ranking). However, if the goal is do present research findings I would rate it a 3 because there was little evidence to back up the claim that meta-analysis is the direction distance research should go. I do not necessarily disagree with the claim, there simply was little evidence of it presented.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Distance: Self-directed learning
This week I read two articles by D. Randy Garrison concerning self-directed learning (SDL) and distance education. Garrison states, "The foundation of the interest and movement in SDL was a focus on the freedom and responsibility of the individual learners to construct their own learning experiences. It was also a rejection of an excessively teacher-centered traditional educational experience, which too often demonstrated little trust and respect for the competency of individuals to take responsiblity for learning" (162). However, Garrison did not appear to be 100% sold on the virtues of SDL as it is generally understand. Garrison pointed out that a total focus on SDL negates opporutnities for teachers and institutions (who may know better) to guide student learning.
I think that much of what I have written/thought about distance learning was summed up when Garrison described Peters view that the "new form of distance education [has] the dominant pedagogic pattern being 'autonomous, self-guided learning.'" (164).
Garrison pushes back stating, "However as relevant as Peters' concept of autonomous learning might be for informal learning and society at large, it does not address distance eduation's role and responsibility in the area of facilitating or supporting effective formal learning" (164).
Garrison went on to discuss issues of control and motivation, and how they relate to SDL. I decided to do more research on SDL and uncovered a book review of "Self-direct learning" by Malcom Knowles, which, as far as I could tell, was the first book using that term. One of the key points I took from the summary is that the self-directed learner has to feel like the problems that are being researched are important for him/her. I wonder how much of institutionally-directed learning fits this criteria.
I also stumbled across an article about Andragogy and Self-Directed Learning. I was not familiar with the term "andragogy" (adult education) and it was interesting to read this additional perspective. A key takeaway was that there are different kinds of learners. Different degrees of SDL will be appropriate for different learners.
I look forward to touring Independent Study and learning about how these principles are being put into practice in their instructional design.
I think that much of what I have written/thought about distance learning was summed up when Garrison described Peters view that the "new form of distance education [has] the dominant pedagogic pattern being 'autonomous, self-guided learning.'" (164).
Garrison pushes back stating, "However as relevant as Peters' concept of autonomous learning might be for informal learning and society at large, it does not address distance eduation's role and responsibility in the area of facilitating or supporting effective formal learning" (164).
Garrison went on to discuss issues of control and motivation, and how they relate to SDL. I decided to do more research on SDL and uncovered a book review of "Self-direct learning" by Malcom Knowles, which, as far as I could tell, was the first book using that term. One of the key points I took from the summary is that the self-directed learner has to feel like the problems that are being researched are important for him/her. I wonder how much of institutionally-directed learning fits this criteria.
I also stumbled across an article about Andragogy and Self-Directed Learning. I was not familiar with the term "andragogy" (adult education) and it was interesting to read this additional perspective. A key takeaway was that there are different kinds of learners. Different degrees of SDL will be appropriate for different learners.
I look forward to touring Independent Study and learning about how these principles are being put into practice in their instructional design.
Distance: Response to "Computer Mediated Learning Groups"
Charles Graham was the lead author of a book chapter entitled "Computer-Mediated Learning Groups: Benefits and Challenges to Using Groupwork in Online Learning Environments." I thought this was a very interesting article.
To me there is a tension between what the research says, and my own personal experience. In this I am not referring to F2F group learning VS computer-mediated group learning, but rather the research that group learning is so much more effective than individual learning. My experience is that most group learning that is contrived for the sake of classroom exercise has not been as fruitful as independent learning. (I admit it is possible that I have been a part of many poorly constructed group learning activities, or that I have a personality/learning style that needs specialized group work treatment. Graham points out that business executives differed in their approach to group work from educators and management was my undergraduate study). However as I talk to many of my peers they seem to share the view that most classroom groups they have been a part of are contrived and quickly merge to the less effective "divide and conquer" approach that Graham discusses.
I have found group learning to be powerful when (1) all participants are highly motivated and (2) share the same goal. One fruitful group I was recently a part of was centered on a book called WHY but as I looked more carefully at the chapter I realized that this was a "work group" as opposed to a "learning group."
I want to believe the research, and I want to develop the skills of helping facilitate powerful learning. I had no quarrels with the ideas presented on how to apply group learning to a computer-mediated environment, but I struggled with the research presented by Johnson and Johnson because it is so different from how I have interpreted my learning experiences.
Please comment and share successful learning groups you have been a part of...
To me there is a tension between what the research says, and my own personal experience. In this I am not referring to F2F group learning VS computer-mediated group learning, but rather the research that group learning is so much more effective than individual learning. My experience is that most group learning that is contrived for the sake of classroom exercise has not been as fruitful as independent learning. (I admit it is possible that I have been a part of many poorly constructed group learning activities, or that I have a personality/learning style that needs specialized group work treatment. Graham points out that business executives differed in their approach to group work from educators and management was my undergraduate study). However as I talk to many of my peers they seem to share the view that most classroom groups they have been a part of are contrived and quickly merge to the less effective "divide and conquer" approach that Graham discusses.
I have found group learning to be powerful when (1) all participants are highly motivated and (2) share the same goal. One fruitful group I was recently a part of was centered on a book called WHY but as I looked more carefully at the chapter I realized that this was a "work group" as opposed to a "learning group."
I want to believe the research, and I want to develop the skills of helping facilitate powerful learning. I had no quarrels with the ideas presented on how to apply group learning to a computer-mediated environment, but I struggled with the research presented by Johnson and Johnson because it is so different from how I have interpreted my learning experiences.
Please comment and share successful learning groups you have been a part of...
Friday, February 6, 2009
Distance Research Project
I am still in the process of refining my distance research project. With the help of Charles Graham I have refined my research questions to be:
Research Questions
1. What online technologies do Religious Education Faculty use to facilitate learning?
2. Why do they use it?
3. How do they most effectively use it?
4. Are there any issues that are unique to online technologies and religious education? (e.g. not just concerned with knowledge acquisition but the spiritual edifying of students).
5. In what ways do Religious Education Faculty members consider “openness” (publishing resources for a wider audience) as part of their teaching stewardship?
I have completed three interviews with faculty members and so far I think they have gone well. I have certainly learned from hearing their perspectives. When you hang out in distance learning and open education courses your perspective tends to get a little skewed. Below is a rough transcript of one of the interviews, I've made some slight changes to protect confidentiality. If you have any bright ideas as I pursue this inquiry, please feel free to share them.
Q. What online technologies do you use to facilitate learning?
A. Mostly Blackboard. I give tests on blackboard, papers, PowerPoints, web links, assignments appear and are submitted on Blackboard.
I think that with a BYU TV output, and then respond through something like Blackboard you would be very close to really having the world as your campus.
Q. Why do you use these technologies?
A. Saves time, less paper, Makes it easier for students to see their grades.
Electronic interaction is so good that it eliminates confusion on the part of students—fewer emails from students, fewer students stopping by.
Q. How do you use these technologies to maximize their effectiveness?
A. I teach off of Blackboard –accesses the PowerPoint via BBoard. Modeling how to use Bboard.
We have to do a better job at the adult teaching level for motivating learning. We assume that adults want to learn but that isn’t really true in the classroom. You as the teacher has the responsibility to make the classroom fun and interesting and motivational to learn. Need to find ways to motivate people to learn. University level students need motivational online teaching strategies—we have to get better at these things.
Q. Are there online technologies you have considered using but chose not to? If so, why?
I have considered taking media that I didn't want to take class time to show and put it on BlackBoard. There is lots of good media that could be developed so that students could watch it on their own in Blackboard.
Time/availability/cost are things that have prevented him from doing these things.
Q. Are there any issues that you have considered regarding online technologies and religious education?
A. I’m sure there is some truth to the idea that distance makes it harder to edify, but it hasn’t bothered the Brethren to take GC out there. But GC is only spiritually interactive. There is a difference between preaching and teaching, but I think you could have a pretty good package if you could have the interactivity where someone could participate in class long distance. All we really need is one student or TA who can take questions from a student in the Philippines. Not taking it live might reduce participation.
Q. In what ways (if any) do you consider “openness” (publishing resources for a wider audience) as part of your teaching stewardship?
If you had a BYU ID you could be still sign up for blackboard in a BYU course. The main obstacle to publishing things on iTunes, etc. is the amount of time I have available. If I had enough student TAs I could teach the world.
7. Any ideas of how else I should talk with?
Research Questions
1. What online technologies do Religious Education Faculty use to facilitate learning?
2. Why do they use it?
3. How do they most effectively use it?
4. Are there any issues that are unique to online technologies and religious education? (e.g. not just concerned with knowledge acquisition but the spiritual edifying of students).
5. In what ways do Religious Education Faculty members consider “openness” (publishing resources for a wider audience) as part of their teaching stewardship?
I have completed three interviews with faculty members and so far I think they have gone well. I have certainly learned from hearing their perspectives. When you hang out in distance learning and open education courses your perspective tends to get a little skewed. Below is a rough transcript of one of the interviews, I've made some slight changes to protect confidentiality. If you have any bright ideas as I pursue this inquiry, please feel free to share them.
Q. What online technologies do you use to facilitate learning?
A. Mostly Blackboard. I give tests on blackboard, papers, PowerPoints, web links, assignments appear and are submitted on Blackboard.
I think that with a BYU TV output, and then respond through something like Blackboard you would be very close to really having the world as your campus.
Q. Why do you use these technologies?
A. Saves time, less paper, Makes it easier for students to see their grades.
Electronic interaction is so good that it eliminates confusion on the part of students—fewer emails from students, fewer students stopping by.
Q. How do you use these technologies to maximize their effectiveness?
A. I teach off of Blackboard –accesses the PowerPoint via BBoard. Modeling how to use Bboard.
We have to do a better job at the adult teaching level for motivating learning. We assume that adults want to learn but that isn’t really true in the classroom. You as the teacher has the responsibility to make the classroom fun and interesting and motivational to learn. Need to find ways to motivate people to learn. University level students need motivational online teaching strategies—we have to get better at these things.
Q. Are there online technologies you have considered using but chose not to? If so, why?
I have considered taking media that I didn't want to take class time to show and put it on BlackBoard. There is lots of good media that could be developed so that students could watch it on their own in Blackboard.
Time/availability/cost are things that have prevented him from doing these things.
Q. Are there any issues that you have considered regarding online technologies and religious education?
A. I’m sure there is some truth to the idea that distance makes it harder to edify, but it hasn’t bothered the Brethren to take GC out there. But GC is only spiritually interactive. There is a difference between preaching and teaching, but I think you could have a pretty good package if you could have the interactivity where someone could participate in class long distance. All we really need is one student or TA who can take questions from a student in the Philippines. Not taking it live might reduce participation.
Q. In what ways (if any) do you consider “openness” (publishing resources for a wider audience) as part of your teaching stewardship?
If you had a BYU ID you could be still sign up for blackboard in a BYU course. The main obstacle to publishing things on iTunes, etc. is the amount of time I have available. If I had enough student TAs I could teach the world.
7. Any ideas of how else I should talk with?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Distance: Research Question
I've been thinking about the research question to study for this class. I have a few different ideas, but the one that I woke up thinking about at 3 AM a couple of days ago concerned surveying faculty to members to determine their attitudes towards and uses of tools that would help them distribute some of their ideas at a distance. I found this literature review regarding faculty perceptions of distance education and read through it to see what I could find. One thing I noted was that the focus was on creating complete distance education courses. I am more interested in studying how faculty perceive and use Web 2.0 tools to share part of their teachings at a distance. For example how do faculty members view podcasting their lectures? What prevents them from doing so?
My initial thought is to interview 5-7 faculty members asking questions such as...
1. What tools (if any) do you use to share your course content with those at a distance?
2. If they do use tools, ask about the ways in which they use them and why the use them. Also, why do they not use other tools.
3. If they do not use tools, why not? Is there a technical barrier, a low perceived value?
4. I will also ask them if they know of faculty members that they feel are successful in using tools to promote distance learning. This will help me find a wider variety of users.
I would hope that I could turn this study into a paper by the end of the semester. Actually doing the research would be very helpful for me.
Comments/suggestions?
My initial thought is to interview 5-7 faculty members asking questions such as...
1. What tools (if any) do you use to share your course content with those at a distance?
2. If they do use tools, ask about the ways in which they use them and why the use them. Also, why do they not use other tools.
3. If they do not use tools, why not? Is there a technical barrier, a low perceived value?
4. I will also ask them if they know of faculty members that they feel are successful in using tools to promote distance learning. This will help me find a wider variety of users.
I would hope that I could turn this study into a paper by the end of the semester. Actually doing the research would be very helpful for me.
Comments/suggestions?
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Distance: Transactional Theory
The transactional distance theory states that a "psychological and communications space" (transactional distance) exists between the instructor and student (22). Depending on the level of dialog and structure in a distance education class the transactional distance will vary. Increased structure The greater the level of transactional distance the more autonomy the students will need to have.
In one of the articles we read Moore focuses on three types of interaction (where these uses are strong "dialog" would be increased and transactional distance would be decreased). These three are "learner-content" "learner-instructor" and "learner-learner." Moore states that "the main weakness of distance education programs is their commitment to only one type of medium" (5). Those preparing distance (and other kinds of) education courses need to pay attention to the levels of these interactions.
I was particularly interested in the "learner-content" interaction as it reminded me of one of my favorite essays by David Hawkins (who served on David Williams' doctoral committee). Moore suggests that this may be one area in which Holmberg's conversational theory may be particularly applicable.
Thus far in this class we have focused on three theories--"industrialized education," "conversation" and now the "theory of transactional distance." Moore (the author of transactional distance theory) discusses the relationship between these theories as saying that Peters' (industrialized) model is the highest-level, with transactional theory nested underneath. Holmberg's (conversational) theory is a "lower-level system nested within the transactional distance system" (101). Thus we see that these theories do not need to conflict with each other but can come together in a whole.
One insight I gained while reading this article stemmed from Moore's argument that transactional distance is a matter of degrees and that (commenting on Holmberg's theory) "Rather than declare that all teaching should be conversational, it would be more helpful to describe what kinds of students benefit and do not benefit from such an approach, and what aleternatives are available to each" (101). Typically, I have tried to find "the one best way." This quote illustrates that there may not be a "best way" for every situation. In some cases high transactional distance is okay. At times, a conversational approach may be the best way to go. And perhaps even an industrialized mass-produced product also has its place. The key is to guage the needs of the learner and match them with the appropriate pedagogical tools.
In one of the articles we read Moore focuses on three types of interaction (where these uses are strong "dialog" would be increased and transactional distance would be decreased). These three are "learner-content" "learner-instructor" and "learner-learner." Moore states that "the main weakness of distance education programs is their commitment to only one type of medium" (5). Those preparing distance (and other kinds of) education courses need to pay attention to the levels of these interactions.
I was particularly interested in the "learner-content" interaction as it reminded me of one of my favorite essays by David Hawkins (who served on David Williams' doctoral committee). Moore suggests that this may be one area in which Holmberg's conversational theory may be particularly applicable.
Thus far in this class we have focused on three theories--"industrialized education," "conversation" and now the "theory of transactional distance." Moore (the author of transactional distance theory) discusses the relationship between these theories as saying that Peters' (industrialized) model is the highest-level, with transactional theory nested underneath. Holmberg's (conversational) theory is a "lower-level system nested within the transactional distance system" (101). Thus we see that these theories do not need to conflict with each other but can come together in a whole.
One insight I gained while reading this article stemmed from Moore's argument that transactional distance is a matter of degrees and that (commenting on Holmberg's theory) "Rather than declare that all teaching should be conversational, it would be more helpful to describe what kinds of students benefit and do not benefit from such an approach, and what aleternatives are available to each" (101). Typically, I have tried to find "the one best way." This quote illustrates that there may not be a "best way" for every situation. In some cases high transactional distance is okay. At times, a conversational approach may be the best way to go. And perhaps even an industrialized mass-produced product also has its place. The key is to guage the needs of the learner and match them with the appropriate pedagogical tools.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Distance: Article Report #3
As I re-examined the articles I have been studying, specifically looking at data collection and analysis methods, I noticed some interesting themes. Five of the eleven articles I have been reading had no data collection. These articles focused on historical or theoretical issues dealing with distance education. Three of the articles used questionnaires to survey student opinions or outcomes and then used various statistical techniques to analyze the data looking for correlations. I noticed that two of these studies had a 33% response rate and the other had a 50% response rate. Three of the articles used a more qualitative approach. One article discussed an analysis of eight blogs and interviews the authors of the blogs; another reported on interviews with twenty women regarding distance education. The third described a professional development program in detail (case study).
I thought it was particularly interesting that of these eleven articles only one compared students who were in a F2F setting with students learning at a distance to compare their learning outcomes.
Below is a table that outlines specific methods used in each of the articles. Blogger would not let me copy/past from Word so I had to upload it as an image file. I spent some time researching a better way, but could not find one. Should you have insights as to how to do this, they are welcome.
I thought it was particularly interesting that of these eleven articles only one compared students who were in a F2F setting with students learning at a distance to compare their learning outcomes.
Below is a table that outlines specific methods used in each of the articles. Blogger would not let me copy/past from Word so I had to upload it as an image file. I spent some time researching a better way, but could not find one. Should you have insights as to how to do this, they are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
