CANADIAN DISTANCE EDUCATION: Style Over Substance or Substance Over Style? PART 2...

PART TWO:  “SUBSTANCE”

So, Canadian educators are using synchronous and asynchronous methods to deliver their programs.  What implications do these methods have on learners?  What did they prefer?  What did the research find?

Referring back to the article “Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers” by Elizabeth Murphy, Maria A. Rodriguez-Manzanares, and Michael Barbour, the researchers interviewed 42 Canadian distance education teachers from all over the country.  I found this number fascinating itself since it is difficult to find research participants for research studies.  If there were 42 participants, how many non-participants were there?  Right away I thought “things have changed from 1997!”  (see post “Canadian Distance Education – Have things changes since the 90s") simply due to the numbers in the study.  Apparently in the late 90s there were only a handful of institutions attempting to employ distance learning.  These numbers, even if there were “only” 42, indicate to me that Canadians are embracing the technology.

What was interesting is that the researchers found that there is a preference for asynchronous online teaching.  The reason given was that students prefer using text for communication purposes.  Using text was not a method I employed in my synchronous distance education course.  I just assumed that students liked the live format because they could ask me questions directly.  I did use email as a means of communication, but never did use message boards.  The authors’ research did indicate, however, that voice was important to helping those learners having problems.

Even though the study focused on perceptions from teachers of both asynchronous and synchronous models, they found that all of the teachers in the study actually relied on variations of both models which can loosely be defined as “blended learning”, another expression that I have not heard coined until recently.

I found the findings of this research interesting.  Applying learning theory to this situation, it appears students like the ability to work at their own pace, spending the time needed on material before moving on (asynchronous).  If a course is designed properly, students could have the ability to “branch” for remedial help or advanced questions on a topic, which is an application of behaviorism (see Driscoll, 2005 p. 62)  As well, hopefully students would be “able to test their own understandings against those of others, notably those of teachers or more advanced peers” (Driscoll, 2005 p. 388) employing a constructivist approach.  Message boards could be used to serve this purpose.

With the ability to post and react at will, watch video or listen to audio on demand, and have the ability to ask questions live, do educators have all bases covered?  This article answered another question I had in a previous blog entry regarding what attracts learners to certain programs.  The authors of the article indicate that educators and designers must focus on pedagogy rather than the media used to deliver the course.  This is the reason we must understand different theories to help us understand HOW learners learn and how we can use the technologies available to best bring out understanding from our students.  If we have solid instruction from a pedagogical point of view, our applications of these skills will be evident in our work-lives (or daily lives), and later in the lives of our learners.

So, style over substance or substance over style?  It appears that both play a role in distance education. As seen in this study, both styles (asynchronous and synchronous) can be employed to meet learning needs. I feel, however, that in order for a program to be effective one cannot overlook substance, in this case meaning learning theory, quality of content, and quality of instruction.  The research supports these findings.

Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3^rd ed). Boston, MA: Pearson

A&B

Murphy, E., Rodriguez-Manzanares, M., & Barbour, M. (2011). Asynchronous and

synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance

education teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 583-591.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01112.x

 Photo Credit:  http://www.inboundsales.net/Portals/87880/images/2010-Substance-Logo[1].jpg

CANADIAN HIGH SCHOOL DISTANCE EDUCATION: Style Over Substance or Substance over Style?

 

PART ONE:  “STYLE”

My last post saw me discussing how a lack of proper distance education programs in Canada was perceived to be an issue in the late 1990s.  I set out to see what was going on in Canada and if any substantial changes have occurred. Two “styles” of delivery kept popping up:  “synchronous” and “asynchronous”. 

I taught a televised distance education Calculus course for eight years.  At the time (2002), there were not very many of us in the province teaching distance education courses.  I taught what is known as a “synchronous” distance learning course meaning that I taught live from my classroom with a group of students in my class that was broadcast via satellite (later internet) to other schools.  Conversely, an “asynchronous” model is one where students and teacher interact at different places at different times, generally relying on text or saved audio/video files.

Even though I was given great training and had access to talented experts, I was never formally “schooled” in distance education:  I learned as I went along and got on with it. I never used the words “asynchronous” or “synchronous”.  I was simply a “distance ed teacher”.  I just thought everyone else was doing the same thing I was.  The only other modes of distance learning I was aware of were correspondence schools with their print only/audio-video-tape methods.

I found an article entitled “Asynchronous and synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance education teachers” by Elizabeth Murphy, Maria A. Rodriguez-Manzanares, and Michael Barbour.   I wanted to take a close look at this article because much of the research I am finding focuses on post-high school learners rather than those in high school.  The synchronous online teaching part of that title definitely applied to me.  I was in particular curious about the perspectives of the asynchronous teachers since I never employed this model.  I started teaching my distance ed course in 2002 and this study was published in 2011.  I was looking forward to seeing what changes or innovations had occurred in this time.

The authors cite some research by Bernard et al (2004) that I found interesting.  Here are some key facts one could refer to when deciding which style of distance learning is best for learners in a potential course offering.

PROS FOR ASYNCHRONOUS MODELS

-       more positive effects in terms of achievement and attitude outcomes

CONS FOR ASYNCHRONOUS MODELS

-       lower retention rates, higher drop out rates

PROS FOR SYNCHRONOUS MODELS

      -     structured nature may be better for younger learners

CONS FOR SYNCHRONOUS MODELS

-       inflexible with respect to scheduling

-       conducive to lecturing, instructor center for learning

These pros and cons got me to thinking about what I did in my course and looking back now, I may have done things a bit differently.  Now that I have my head wrapped around a couple of general “styles” stay tuned - I now want to figure out what “substance” is involved these methods?  What are educators using?  Have any of you used a solely synchronous or asynchronous model?  If so, leave me a comment and  give me a quick summary of what you've done or are currently doing!


Stay tuned for "PART TWO:  Substance"!

For more info:

Bernard, R.M., Abram, P.C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L. et al (2004).
            How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the
            empirical   literature. Review of Educational Research, 74, 379-439.

Murphy, E., Rodriguez-Manzanares, M., & Barbour, M. (2011). Asynchronous and

synchronous online teaching: Perspectives of Canadian high school distance

education teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 583-591.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01112.x

Photo credit:  http://torontoist.com/2010/03/the_style_notebook/

CANADIAN DISTANCE EDUCATION - Have things changed since the 90s?

Geographically, Canada is a large country with a relatively small population.  That would make us perfect candidates for distance education programs with learners spread out all over the country in remote areas, right?

I came across an interesting article dated April 21, 1997 at http://canadaonline.about.com/ (direct link to article: http://canadaonline.about.com/library/weekly/aa042197.htm)  that held a cynical view as to how Canada was doing with respect to taking care of learners who need for distance education programs.  

The author felt that at the time, Canada as a country had “a long way to go” with respect to distance education and criticized the fact that most distance education programs rely solely on videoconferencing, notes, and audio tapes.  This article got me to question if Canada, as a nation, has made any inroads in the 15 years since this article was printed.  What has Canada done with respect to distance education?  What strategies are we employing?  I have some research to do.

Based just on my own shopping around for a potential Master’s program, I can’t help but think that we have come a long way, that we are competitive with what is being offered in other nations with respect to the quantity and quality of our distance education programs, and that they are successful.

For some local examples, just from the top of my head I can think of Crendenda Virtual High School (http://www.credenda.net/), the many programs at the University of Saskatchewan (such as the ETAD program), and the Saskatoon Catholic High School (http://scs.sk.ca/cyber/) I am sure that there are many more in our province alone.  Now I am motivated to find out what is going on in Canada and abroad.  What is our focus?

WHAT’S THE MOTIVATION TO OFFER A DISTANCE EDUCATION COURSE? 

I can’t help but think that the use of the internet as an instructional tool has been a game changer with respect to education from a financial perspective.  There is nothing stopping someone from doing an degree remotely from a university in British Columbia or Great Britain.  School divisions and institutions of higher learning must have to work very hard to make their programs attractive in order to get the funds to develop, implement, and instruct these courses to make them attractive to prospective learners, let alone retain them.  Does word of mouth have an impact with choosing a program?  I admit – I shopped around for options out of province but was convinced by numerous people that the program at the University of Saskatchewan was the best.  At no time was technology or mode of delivery ever mentioned in the recommendations.  Does this prove that quality matters rather than glitzy marketing skills employed by some institutions?  With more and more options available, how does a distance education learner sift through all of the options, of which, I believe are growing.

So, I am here to prove this article wrong.

I found the final quote of the article interesting: “... fortunately the Internet and associated technology opens up the doors for us to get the information we need and train ourselves.”  Is this example of metacognition?  As the technology we have advances, are we taking control of our learning, even in an informal sense?  It appears so.

I look forward to further researching what Canada has been up to with regards to solving the perceived problem of the lack of distance education programs in the 90s!  Perhaps I will look at this blog post in 15 years and marvel at what "disruptive innovations" have occured in that time.

"Now! That's What I Call 90s" photo:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Now_That's_What_I_Call_the_90s

MOBILE LEARNING – A “Disuptive Innovation” or just a fad?

My quest for innovations in distance education sent me in the direction of how mobile phones were used in a distance education English as an additional language course in China to increase interactivity. I wanted to learn more and further research has led me to learn that this is an emerging discipline in itself.

I came across an interesting post on a blog called “MindShift: How We Will Learn” written by Tina Barseghian entitled “How Teachers Make Cell Phones Work in the Classroom”.  Even though I am most concerned with how these devices are used with regards to distance education and how they can enhance student learning, she mentions other things mobile learning involves of interest to such as digital citizenship, internet safety, and teaching techniques, among others.

My last post involved a study where mobile learning technology enhanced the learning experience for both learners and the instructor involved in a Chinese University English course available for students to take remotely.  I was skeptical about how such technology could be used in the maths and sciences, but Barseghian gives an example of how a chemistry instructor uses it successfully in his classes giving me extra food for thought.  He uses an iPad to record his voice and explanations when students ask him for individual help and immediately uploads them to his website so other students can benefit from the individualized questions.  The students then take multiple choice exams and send their answers in via text messaging. The results are then immediately posted on his laptop and sent directly to the overhead screen giving automatic feedback.  I could definitely try this approach in my math or calculus classes.

DOES IT WORK EVERY TIME?

The Chinese English as an Additional Language Study (last post) provided evidence that mobiles enhanced interaction and learning of the students involved.  I tried to find some information to see where it did not work as well so I could have both viewpoints.  

I had concerns whether the initial fun factor of using the phones would last or soon die off.  Ramsay Musallam, the chemistry instructor involved, addresses this issue.  He admits that it is “cute and fun and that wears off” but that it is “more efficient and meaningful, and it makes the classroom feel like a bigger place”.  He also refers to the tool as a way he can keep in constant contact with his students.  I agree with this stance but, at the same time, when I was reading about the Chinese study (see last post), I couldn’t help but think that there has to be times when the fun factor is lost.  Actually,  the first thing I thought about was “what about those who don’t own any digital devices”?  I have many students in my classes who don’t own any digital devices.  Would they be excluded?  The first solution I came up with is to put the students in groups, but, that limits the instructor to group evaluation.  This is consistent with constructivist theory, but, it is not suitable at all times depending on the topic.

Paul Barnwell addresses this issue.  He tried the approach with his 8^th grade class but later abandoned it.  He admits that the students were engaged, but, that students without devices could not participate as easily (unless put into groups) and that some students took advantage of the anonymous nature of the system providing them with an opportunity to text inappropriate messages.  He sees little benefit to using mobiles for polling purposes and felt that it “wasn’t worth the time or the hassle”.

From my own experience in distance education I asked the question, “What if the technology fails?”  Instructors must have back-up plans in case of the inevitable failure of some part of the technology.  Is this something an instructor should RELY on?

Is it something worth trying in your classroom?  I would like to give it a go, but, at this point I feel that I need to learn a bit more before I dive into this emerging discipline.  Are there other pros and cons that we can add to using mobile phones to learn in class or from a distance?

Check out this link: 

http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2012/05/how-teachers-make-cell-phones-work-in-the-classroom/

LEARNING FROM A DISTANCE - with your phone?

Just Friday one of my students showed me his recently purchased smart phone.  After saying how cool it was, the next thing I thought was “how can I use these things in my classroom to enhance learning…”  I thought to myself “the screen is big enough to easily watch a movie, so why not interactive educational material?”  If given the chance, my student could be anywhere in the world as long as there was an internet connection and have access to content if available. So, I set off on a search to learn more. Here is a report from my initial investigations. Could this be an example of  a “disruptive innovation”?

I came found a study by Minjuan Wang, Ruimin Shen, Daniel Novak, and Xiaoyan Pan entitled “The Impact of Mobile Learning On Students’ Learning Behaviours and Performance: Report From a Large Blended Classroom”.  In their study, they set out to determine if cell-phone technology could increase interactivity in a blended English as an additional language classroom in China.  The students had the option to take the class using a synchronous or asynchronous distance learning method.  They soon found that the students enrolled in the live broadcast weren’t provided with a way to interact with the instructor or with each other.  They feel that distance learning without interactivity reinforces students’ ability to be passive learners who don’t (or in this case can’t) participate.  Consequently, they developed a program where students could tune in anywhere and reply instantly with their devices.

Chinese university students are noted as being a bit reserved, listening quietly to what the instructor has to say.  In actuality, this is really no different than what North American students have been subjected to in lecture theatres until recent times.  The system was incorporated to engage the students to participate rather than be passive learners simply watching a lecture on a screen or classroom.  Initially, a reward system was used to further elicit responses.  They had four options for tuning into the class with the text/audio/video option being most popular (much like our “kitchen parties”).  The students would then text in answers to questions posed by the instructor allowing them to response immediately.  Students also had the opportunity to post messages to a forum and these postings were also analyzed in the study.

The project was deemed as a success on many levels. The researchers felt that it promoted interaction as well as engaging students cognitively, socially, and emotionally.  The students were found to have had a high level of satisfaction with the class, the method of delivery, and with the activities presented to them in class.  The authors present us with all kinds of statistical data to substantiate their findings.

I could see this being especially useful in the social sciences and languages.  As a mathematics teacher, I struggle to think of a practical use in my subject area other than for choosing an answer in a multiple choice format.  Perhaps I could be proven wrong.  If any teachers have used this technology, I would be interested to hear your thoughts.  With phones getting more and more technologically advanced, and with wifi or 4G available in more and more places, hopefully the excuse “I wasn’t the day we learned this” soon becomes obsolete.  My only fear is that this could be seen as a fad and the interest could soon wane.  I intend to research this topic further.

Check out the study – it’s an interesting read.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00846.x/abstract

Wang, R. S., Shen, R., Novak, D., & Pan, X. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on

students’ learning behaviours and performance: Report from a large blended

classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 673-695.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00846.x

DISRUPTIVE INNOVATIONS

The word “disruptive” is usually associated with something negative.  Think of all the disruptions you encounter in your day: disruptive students, being disrupted by colleagues when you are trying to work, being disrupted by your phone, being disruptive when you are trying to watch TV, flight disruptions…

I came across a paper that described how online learning appears to be a “classic disruptive innovation”.  I have never heard these words put together in such a clever way before.  Clayton M. Christensen, a professor at Harvard University, was the man who first used the term.

According to Heather Staker, Christensen’s “disruptive innovation” is basically an innovation that improve products, services, and in our case, education delivery in a way that is unexpected and industry changing by replacing something complicated and expensive with less expensive and more convenient alternatives. Examples are everywhere:  mp3s, email, streaming video, mobile phones….  Think of the examples in my previous post regarding communication…

Now, think of the progression of instructional media and distance education: instructional films on reels, television, radio, videos (VHS/Beta), audio (vinyl, reels, cassettes, cds, dvds), computers, and now the internet. Learners can now learn using their telephones as instructional tools without being near a classroom.  Blended learning is now picking up pace in educational institutions and in the corporate world in education and training programs.

In her article, Staker gives some examples of materials that enhance the learning experience as “add-ons” sustaining the “conventional structure” rather than transforming it.  She lists such things as calculators, whiteboards, and overhead projectors.  Are there others that should be added to this list?

In her paper, she profiles a list of 40 organizations that are using online learning in “brick and mortar” schools, which is essentially blended learning.  It is a very detailed and comprehensive look at how institutions are using blended learning in the USA.

I challenge you to think of anything that is new in the field of educational technology that you feel could be a “disruptive innovation”.

For more information please see “The Rise Of K-12 Blended Learning Profiles Of Emerging Models” by Heather Staker

http://www.innosightinstitute.org/innosight/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/The-Rise-of-K-12-Blended-Learning.pdf

and  http://www.innosightinstitute.org/blended_learning_models/

"Ten O'Clock Postman"

What better way to start off a blog about technology in education than to post an early 80s Europop music video?

Even though the 80s don't seem that distant to me, this track is now 30 years old.  If you listen closely to the lyrics, the song is generally about the singer eagerly waiting at home for the postman to deliver a letter from a new love.  Would this happen in today's world?  Are we that patient in 2012?

Imagine if this was to be recorded today.  What would be some sample titles? "Ten O'Clock Text Message"?  "Ten O'Clock BBM"?  "Ten O'Clock Tweet?"  "Ten O'Clock DM"?  "Ten O'Clock Post"? "Ten O'Clock Email"?  "Ten O'Clock Facetime"?  Times and technology have certainly changed.

Now the question is how can we use technological advances - whether it be teaching learners in schools or universities, training business people in the corporate world, or adult learners with an interest to just learn something new and different - to further understanding and expedite learning?  If communicating can become so instant with advances in education, does the same learning curve apply to learning using or via technology?  This blog will attempt to educate the reader with what's new and current in education focusing on modes of distance education and issues surrounding being an "online learner".

Turn up the volume and enjoy.