Reading Notes. Rennie, F; Morrison, T; Mason, R. (2013) Ctp 2

Rennie, F; Morrison, T; Mason, R.  (2013) ‘Chapter 2: Designing for a distributed environment’ E-learning and Social Networking Handbook: Resources for Higher Education. New York: Routledge. Page 25 – 42

Distributed blended- Easy to access to multi modes of educational resources, no matter your geographical location. Distance education and E-Learning (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001). Education and learning takes place independent of place and time.

Blended learning - combines real time face to face learning and remote asynchronous learning.

To have a choice of media to teach with shows a student centred approach.

“Providing flexibility for students in terms of time or location of study is one key aim of the pedagogy of distributed learning.” Page 34

Scholarship from Tait & Mills (1999) stress the student demand for learning flexibility and the fact that campus based learning is combining with the growth of the internet and ICT abilities, shows the lack of clear definitions of various learning terms.

Reading Rennie, F; Morrison, T; Mason, R.  (2013)  and quoting specifically from Young (2002): “A number of universities that introduced online courses as a way of attracting new learners, have found to their dismay that their campus students also opt for these courses, often creating their blend by taking one online course plus several face-to-face courses (Young, 2002)” page 34 – This could be a supportive argument to my personal future practice development. Could I develop this course independently, then offer this as a part time course alongside students opted studies at various institutions worldwide?

Further to this Middlehurst (2002) discusses the new pattern of intensive face-to-face learning, followed by longer independent or group learning. With all guided by online technologies.

Distributed learning bridges face-to-face learning with distance learning. This sums up my practice currently (Lea & Nicoll 2002)

New technologies now have the ability to add depth to learning.

What considerations need to be taken into account before choosing technologies?

-Student centred learning!

A course with flexible learning is considering a student centred approach, rather than teacher centred (Gudmundsson & Matthiasdottir, 2004; Meyers & Jones, 1993; Motschnig-Pitrik & Holzinger, 2002)

According to constructivists theories – student centred learning will give students the chance to discover learning material and understand theories critically through reflection, often with peer collaboration.

The nature of the students learning is no longer static and restricted to textbook and teacher. Students now have endless possibilities and a range of ways to learn. Learning becomes dynamic. (Relan & Gillani, 1997)

“The role of the teacher or tutor is to generate an infrastructure for constructive interaction and to help students individually and collectively to negotiate their own meaning.” Page 35

Choosing the right technology is key – rather than choosing a programme which is new and popular and trying to integrate it. This could result in the contents feeling irrelevant and peripheral to the content.

“The five dimensions of flexibility” Collis & Moonen (2004) Can be used to quantify the level of flexibility with distributed learning courses. The five are as follows: time, content, entry requirements, delivery and logistics and institutional approaches and resources.

Further to this: Normand & Littlejohn (2006) offer a five step model to support a successful design of a  flexible programme delivery. They are as follows: strategy, structure, roles and skills, management processes and technology. These are since refined to become 3, but still contain all points.

Social Networking and Learning

Networking communities are powerful to provide intimate and support for self directed lone working. (Rennie & Mason, 2004, chap. 2)

The openness of the internet encourages sharing, group editing, self policing. Teachers are no longer the sole possessors of knowledge.

Systems function in 3 key aspects:

Feedback – the exchange of ideas teacher-to-student and also peer-to-peer. Feedback can help the production of ideas in learning communities. Positive feedback can accelerate change and learning, whilst negative feedback can be counter productive.

System ecology- The structure of collaboration between users and the ecosystem that they are learning in. Problems within this ecosystem can have knock on effects. This is why for online learning that it is important to select the right technology for a module. If wrongly chosen then the knock on effect can change the whole course.

Self-organisation- Online learning requires a far amount of self-regulating features. (Niemi, Launonen, & Raehalme, 2002) Can one technology talk to another and become compatible? Each learner requires a personal ‘specific ecological niche’, enabling themselves to learn where and when they like to suit their lifestyle and self-selected learning choices.

Learning Outcomes

Developing courses begins with learning outcomes. There is a shift to be more learner centred- so the focus is on supporting students to meet their LO, rather than covering content. The shift encourages a depth of processing rather than a breath (Allen 2004)

Resources and media choice is dependant on the students learning outcomes. What choice will enable students to achieve?

There is a reverse in planning a course, from the traditional method. First it is planned what students will be able to achieve, then how will they reach this aim. (Lorenzen 1999)

-What the student will learn will be identified

-The outcome must be achievable and demonstrable

-The course must provide multiple instructions to allow all students to be able to achieve their LO

-The course design must provide adequate time and support to allow all students to achieve to their maximum potential. (Towers, 1996)

A problem of this is if the LO and direction is too ridged then it will lack the flexibility of student choice. How can it be student led if the guidance is so pre-prescribed and outlined before students even enrol?

On Learning Styles and Personalisation

How does a learner actually learn?

It is known that different people prefer different ways to acquire knowledge.

Learning by doing – experimental learner

Learning by video – visual

Learning by talking things over – reflective

How can we be sure that a learner always ants to learn in one certain way? Can we class all our students in these ridged stereotypes?

To attempt to create an online community of online like minded students to enhance peer-to-peer connections institutions are encouraging their students to create online personal spaces. (woods and Ebersole 2003) describe it as communal scaffolding to bridge gaps between cognitive and intellectual tasks.

To have a successful online community with social learning there has to be a certain amount of student-to-student trust. There must be good trust in place to enable high level sharing and open-ended thinking – this is easier if students already know each other and have met before, or if they have an initial face-to-face meeting.

Online sharing of information comes with the negative connotation of over exaggerating truths or bending results. Hiding behind profiles to appear a certain way – so an air of caution is to be taken.

Individualisation versus group interaction

What is the value of social learning?

How much should a tutor allow a student to choose? Customise or personalise? Opt in or out? Self-regulate and select? Or should there be some areas which are compulsorily? Should the student choose their educational path? Or does this just result in students drifting and creating a basis of shallow knowledge?

VLE (virtual learning environments) – not to devalue the term virtual (as it can still create intimate communities for learners) Or Course management system (CMS)- a new term.

It makes sense to have requirements in which students are to participate in tasks which contain transferrable skills such as ‘team work, problem solving, articulating presentation and activities which allow students to practice and demonstrate what they can do.

“Social networking tools, although not primarily designed for formal educational activities, are specifically designed to ensure an open flow of information, easy networking, and ease of use of technology in diverse contexts.” Page 42- 43

Vovides, Sanchez-Alonson, Mitropoulou and Nickmans (2007, p. 5) Although  they argue that CMS should be completely customisable to allow students to dictate how they learn and what they learn, at this stage in my practice I will continue to trial lesson plans created during this PGCHE, and attempt to experiment with course design. Working outside of an institution with small groups of students this would overcomplicate planning at this stage.

Learning support needs to be adaptive in CMS to foster and encourage students to be self-regulated to learn. It needs to be structed well enough to ensure that learners are guided who might be unfamiliar with online learning.

To deliver an effective online course you need to consider:

Availability of technology

Reliability of technology

Standards of course design Instructor (teacher) training

Learning effectiveness,

Student satisfaction

Faculty satisfaction

Cost effectiveness

Access

These points need to be thought of from a student-centred approach.

The Research Issue

Student centred, provide flexible, interactive and dynamic learning environment. What is the rationale for your media choice? (Sharpe et.al 2006 p3)

Research in this scholarship aims to review how course design takes place in practice.

Collis and Moonen (2001) Flexible leaning requires – technology, pedagogy, Implementation strategies, institutional framework.

 Challenges from an Institutional Perspective

The institution’s view will impact the motivation and ability to teach using certain means.

It might be difficult to change an institutions way of thinking from a purely synchronous to asynchronous learning modes. But the implications could out way the struggles of implication.

This view is not always shared by educators, but follow 4 key areas of potential conflict:

-Admin might see online learning as a way to cut costs in traditional teaching methods.

-Online learning cuts jobs, and dilutes subject specialism

-IT services might not want threats to potential online interfaces

-Academic staff may feel that they are not prepared or trained in such areas.

“Lamb (2007) concluded that: Educators and higher education decision-makers have an obligation to carefully and critically assess new technologies before making radical changes.” Page 47

Rennie, F; Morrison, T; Mason, R.  (2013) conclude in chapter 2 that our perspectives are to adapt from “From teacher to facilitator of learning”

References

Allen, M. (2004). Assessing academic programs in higher education. Bolton, MA: Aker.

Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world. London: Kogan Page.

Gudmundsson, A., & Matthiasdottir, A. (2004). Distributed learning in the Nordic countries and Canada. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning (EURODL). Retrieved December 12, 2007,

Lea, M., & Nicoll, K. (2002). Distributed learning. Social and cultural approaches to practice. London: Routledge.

Lamb, B. (2007, July/August). Dr Mashup; or, why educators should learn to stop worrying and love the remix. Educause Review, 42(4), 12–25. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/erm07/erm0740.asp

Lorenzen, M. (1999). Using outcome-based education in the planning and teaching of new information technologies. Journal of Library Administration, 26 (3–4), 141–152. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.libraryinstruction.com/obe.html

Middlehurst, R. (2002). Will e-learning have a dramatic effect on the overseas student market? Paper presented at UUK Policy Conference, The Future of Higher Education: Profits, Partnerships and the Public Good, London.

Niemi, H., Launonen, A., & Reahalme, O. (Eds.). (2002, September 11–14). Towards self-regulation and social navigation in virtual learning spaces: Proceedings of the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002589.htm

Oblinger, D., Barone, C., & Hawkins, B. (2001). Distributed education and its challenges: An overview. Retrieved December 12, 2007, from American Council on Education website http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/distributed-learning/distributed-learning-01.pdf

Relan, A., & Gillani, B. (1997). Web-based information and the traditional classroom_ Similarities and differences. In B. Kahn (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 41–46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Rennie, F., & Mason, R. (2004). The connecticon: Learning for the connected generation. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. (Sharpe et.al 2006 p3)

Tait, A., & Mills, R. (Eds.). (1999). The convergence of distance and conventional education: Patterns of flexibility for the individual learner. New York: Routledge.

Towers, J. M. (1996). An elementary school principal’s experience with implementing an outcome-based curriculum. Catalyst for Change, 25(Winter), 19–23.

Woods, R., & Ebersole, S. (2003), Social networking in the online classroom_ Foundations of effective online learning. eJournal, 12– 13(1). Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://www.ucalgary.ca/ejournal/archive/v1213/v12-13n1Woods-browse.html

Vovides, Y., Sanchez-Alonso, S., Mitropoulou, V., & Nickmans, G. (2007). The use of e-learning course management systems to support learning strategies and to improve self-regulated learning. Educational Research Review, 2(1), 64–74.

Young, J. (2002). “Hybrid” teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(28). Retrieved December 12, 2007, from http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i28/28a03301.htm