PUTTING INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN & OPEN LEARNING TOGETHER

Over the past six weeks I have had the opportunity to research many interesting topics with respect to distance education.  Initially, I thought that my blog would focus on issues involving distance education.  I know this is a broad area, but I felt that there was a lot for me to learn and, to be honest, I wasn’t quite sure where I was going to end up.

Six weeks on, I have been introduced to the Open Learning concept and introduced to  principles of instructional design.  These are two areas that are of great interest to me. 

Is there any way that I could combine these topics into a single blog post?

After reading about the roles and issues surrounding instructional designers I started to think about what goes into making an open course.  These don’t just happen:  they require the talents of instructors, instructional designers, subject experts, and often the learners themselves.  So – if these courses are popping up, who is making them?  What are the guidelines?  Just because they are free or open that does not mean that they are of lower quality.

What I found was a handbook for authors and instructional designers of open and distance learning courses put together by the Commonwealth of Learning, an organization set up by the Commonwealth governments in order to improve quality of education and make education more accessible to members of their countries.  The Commonwealth of Learning is based in Vancouver.  It seemed like perfect timing to discover this document because it ties together a lot of the things I have learned over the last 6 weeks doing research for my blog, as well as in my course work.

The document is titled “Creating Learning Materials for Open and Distance Learning: A Handbook for Authors and Instructional Designers”.  This document is full of interesting information for instructional designers but what really was interesting for me was its focus on designing an open course.

Check it out here:

http://www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/odlinstdesignHB.pdf

The comparison of ODL (open and distance learning) materials to textbooks was very interesting. A typical ODL module allows for interactive activities and immediate feedback, compared to a textbook which is for the most part solely photos and text.  It seems to make sense that the ODL methods allow for more interactivity, yet, in our classrooms we spend hundreds on textbooks.  The manual also gives scenarios of when it would be best to develop your own materials from scratch, or when to adapt new ones.  Tips are given how to plan an ODL course, context issues involved, how to order and pace content, as well as how to use text, photos, and illustrations.  There is a wealth of information here and as a new comer to instructional design, it was all very interesting to me.

Reading this document caused me to think about designing especially for adult learners.  Over my 16 years as a teacher, I think I would have a handle on designing a quality program for high school students.  Adults, however, have different needs and have different experiences and this document addressed some of them.  With open access becoming more and more popular, there is a possibility that one day I could be designing such a course and as a result must be aware of these issues. This document helped cement the idea to me that instructional design does not rely solely on one set of approaches (behavioural, cognitive, or constructivist) but on combinations of all of them to best meet the needs of learners in an online distance course, whether it be an open course or not.

I realize that every course has it’s own instructional design issues or specifications, but, as a new-comer to the field this document gave me some serious food for thought and look forward to studying about instructional design in more depth over the course of my studies. 

 

Special thanks to The Commonwealth of Learning for allowing this document to be available openly and freely.

Document:  http://www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/odlinstdesignHB.pdf

Organization:  www.col.org

LEARNING TECHNOLOGY & THE CORPORATE WORLD - Does the corporate world have different needs?

When I first thought of distance learning, I initially thought about students learning either live or on demand from someone else far away, or of students reading giant binders of print materials from correspondence schools, answering a few questions, and sending them off to be corrected.

Over the past weeks my eyes have been definitely opened.

Over the course of my research, various words have come flying at me:  distance education, asynchronous/synchronous delivery, blended learning, flipped classrooms, eLearning, mobile learning, motivation, numerous theories…  As a high school teacher, former distance education teacher, and adult learner, I only thought of technology in education in an academic, or “school-university” based fashion and put no thought into really what happened behind the scenes. 

It was only after reading “A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked” by R.F. Kenny, Z. Zhang, R.A. Schwier, and K. Campbell and “The critical, relational practice of instructional design in higher education An emerging model of change agency” by R.A. Schwier, K. Campbell, and R. Kenny that I really started to think about what goes on behind the scenes in making these programs. The authors list the skills that instructional designers employ (traditionally and non-traditionally) and they raised some serious questions for me.  The first one that popped into my mind as a budding “educational technologist” was “what would happen if I was hired for a job as a designer in the corporate world?”  This is an area that is both scary and fascinating for me.

I went on a quest to find research in the area of technology and how it relates to learning in the corporate world.  I came across an interesting article from Australia entitled “eLearning in the workplace versus eLearning in higher education” by Farhad Daneshgar and Christine Van Toorn.  They see eLearning as an adaptable, work-at-your-own pace method of learning that is especially suitable for use in today’s changing economy. I never thought about how educational technology could be related to economy before.

What I found interesting about their analyses of distance learning in the workplace is that their findings are so similar to what we have studied in class: emphasizing individual differences, motivation, and social interaction.  Also interesting was their analysis that since people in the workplace are generally more mature, they are able to apply a deeper meaning to what they have learned, much like graduate students (who, as they point out, are most often also working while they study).

Also interesting is how they point out the importance of designing programs suitable to those who are learning from them moving into the instructional design realm.  Instructional design is important in catering to the needs of the learners and they authors give examples of how programs are oriented to what craftspeople, younger professionals, and senior professionals need.

In my last post, I discussed motivation.  When Daneshgar and Van Toorn discussed what motivates those learning in an eLearning format in the workplace I took notice.  They point out that in the corporate world, responsibility and advancement are key motivators for learning in an eLearning environment.  Even though motivation can be intrinsic, is that really different to why undergraduate or even graduate students are learning in an eLearning environment? 

Just like in an educational institution, whether it be a university or a high school, Daneshgar and Van Toorn also stress the importance of leadership being crucial for the success of an eLearning program from top-level management. This caused me again to reflect on the role of the instructional designer, and how important open dialogue and collaboration must be in order for a program to be a success.

Relating to our class discussions about virtual learning communities, this article also mentions the words “informal” and “formal” relating to workplace learning activities as being informal and problem-solving based where as educational learning is de-contextualized and formal.  Is this really the case?  With constructivism moving more and more to the forefront in the planning of educational programming, this is something I plan to watch closely.  I don’t have all of the tools to agree or to disagree with this statement now, but,  in my limited experience, I see this as changing.  As a result, I would argue that this is a difference between workplace and school/university based eLearning programs.

It appears that the issues in designing an eLearning course for the corporate world are similar as for those in the world of education.  The best thing for an instructional designer to do is to dive in and get to it but, as Kenny, Z. Zhang, Schwier, and Campbell point out instructional designers feel accountable and often play roles that aren’t exactly “traditional roles”.  This is what makes the field exciting to me. The Daneshgar & Van Toorn article really helped me make connections to issues and topics we’ve been studying in ETAD 802 to those that occur in the corporate world.  Working in the corporate world is always a possibility and as an educational technology professional, I should be ready.

Please see:

Daneshgar, F. & Van Toorn, C.  eLearning in the workplace versus eLearning in higher

education.  Australian Educational Computing, 24(1), 16-22.  Retrieved from http://acce.edu.au

Kenny, R.F., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R.A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), 9-26. Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/147/140   

Schwier, R.A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. (2007). Instructional designers' perception of their interpersonal, professional, institutional and societal agency: Tales of change and community. In M.J. Keppell (Ed.), Instructional design: Case studies in communities of practice (pp. 1-18). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

WHAT MOTIVATES STUDENTS IN DISTANCE LEARNING?

Motivating students who are sitting live in front of you can be a difficult task.  How does one motivate students potentially 1000s of kilometers away?  This is a task that instructional designers and teachers face when designing and instructing their distance education courses.

Over the duration of ETAD 802, I have been trying to synthesize the topics we’ve been learning and attempt to make sense of them from a holistic perspective.  I found the topic of open learning to be very interesting.  In my previous post, I posted about MIT aiming for a goal of a possible 1 billion learners taking part in open learning from their institute.  I thought to myself: what would motivate students to take these courses, even if they are non-credit?  From an instructional point of view, what do students find important?

In my earlier readings about learning and motivation, Bandura’s four principle sources for influencing self-efficacy beliefs were drawn to my attention (see Driscoll,  p. 318) and I tried to relate them to the readings I’ve done about open learning.  I came across a study entitled “Faculty actions that result in student satisfaction in online courses” by Lana C. Jackson, Stephanie J. Jones, and Roy C. Rodriguez.  I realize that satisfaction and motivation are two different things, but I could not help but feel that some of their findings would be applicable to Bandura’s principles. 

Even though the course in the study is not an “open learning” environment per se, I found that elements of the findings could be applied to on online instructor in an open or closed format.  Especially interesting to me is that the study focused on what educators can do to obtain student satisfaction.   If a class size of 1 billion is to be obtained, the quality of instruction must be very high!

Accessibility of the instructor, clear expectations, and enthusiasm from the instructor were variables that were important to the learners in the study.  On average, these factors were deemed more successful at student satisfaction over variables such as course activities.  I found this interesting!

Relating to Bandura’s principles, the study found that….

-       Enactive mastery experiences providing feedback – the students viewed a timely response from the instructor as important in the perception of their value of the course.  Shall I teach online again, I would just have to figure out how to get to as many at once.  Using message boards would be an option.

-       Vicarious experiences – I found this quote from the article to sum it up exactly “… teaching presence includes the faculty member’s ability to facilitate and direct cognitive and social engagements within the online environment in such a manner as to provide meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning experiences and outcomes for the enrolled students”  Once learners see what others are contributing, they follow the lead of the other learners.  Educators just have to provide meaningful topics.  This is applicable both on and off camera.

-       Verbal Persuasion – the relatively high value found in the study for “enthusiasm for student learning of the instructor” could be construed as a motivator for further interactions and encouragement of success.

-       Success Dependent on Physiological States – no mention or indicators in article.

I also came across another study that correlated student satisfaction versus performance in blended learning curricula conducted by Dr. Nachamma Sockalingam at SIM University, Singapore.  Take a look:

She states that since programs are increasing at a high rate quality is important at retaining and attracting learners.  Therefore, satisfaction is related to motivation which could lead to increased performance. 

I plan to keep tabs on developments in open learning and student satisfaction!

  

references:  

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

Jackson, L. C., Jones, S. J., & Rodrigues, R. C. (2010). Faculty actions that result in

student satisfaction in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

            Networks, 14(4), 78-96. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org

ENROLLMENT PROJECTION: 1 BILLION!

I’ve been recently introduced to the concept of open learning thanks to Rick Schwier (@schwier).  Via Rick, I was made aware of an article (“The Single Biggest Change In Education Since The Printing Press" by Rebecca J. Rosen as published in The Atlantic) posted on Twitter by his Regina counterpart Alec Couros (@courosa) that gave some insights as to what is currently going on in online education and open learning.  It seems that it is catching on – and big name influential players are making huge efforts to make education available for everyone. Take a look at this article and make a point of watching the clip that accompanies the article.

As a huge fan of music, I appreciated the fact that the author makes light of how education is facing reform much like the music industry has been going through in the last 13 years thanks to rampant illegal file sharing.  With the advent of the MP3, music was easily accessible, easily shared, and inexpensive since digital files involve no manufacturing of hardware.  Things certainly have changed.  Record labels folded, executives were out of jobs, and some of the major labels merged into giant super labels.  Now, years on, there appears to be an attitude of “if you can’t beat them, join them” with labels directly posting music videos to YouTube or other similar networks as a means of promotion.  Many bands give out music for free as promotional tools.

Is this what is happening with education?  What is the “MP3 of learning”?  Open learning seems to be to education what digital audio is to music.  Various institutions are making programs accessible to anybody - and on a giant scale.  MIT (Massachussets Institute of Technology) and Harvard University in the United States are spending millions of dollars to make their prestigious institutions available to all learners on a global scale.  MIT has a lofty goal of having 1 billion learners registered in 10 years.  This video featuring Cecilia d'Oliveira, MIT OpenCourseWare's Executive Director and Shigeru Miyagawa, explains what their program is all about:

The problem with open access seems to be traditional practices revolving around policies. Stuart Shieber, James O. Welch, Jr. and Virginia B. Welch from Harvard explain in their video some initiatives they have around open access and explain proposals for new policies that will enable their university make  courses open to anybody. 

It’s an exciting time in education, and other universities already have similar programs on the go.  This project, however, is huge and it will be interesting to see if they meet their enrolment projections!

"THE LECTURE"

David Wiley’s talk on open education really caused me to think about what’s currently going on in schools and in other institutions.  Our readings in class also further sparked my interest.  I sought find  links between the open learning philosophy and situated cognition.

I found another video clip that is kind of a “response” to David Wiley’s talk about open education (see last post). In the video, we are asked “Where is education going?”  Is education driven by big business? 

He gives a history of the “lecture” and how lectures have been delivered to learners over the centuries.  Lectures --- interesting, gripping, topic?  Actually, yes.  Watching this video had me captivated and caused me to reflect on current practices.  His last sentence really struck a chord with me:  just because you earned a degree by being lectured (for the most part), was your degree really an indicator to potential employees as an indicator of your skills?  Even harsher, will lecturing continue “unhindered by the developments of technology”?

Take a look!

Are we still relying on “the lecture”?  Even though it’s a parody, is this really pure sarcasm or is he really that far off from what’s actually going on in schools, universities, and training programs?

This short clip caused me to think about points Driscoll makes in her chapter about situated cognition. Driscoll (2005) states “learning is a co-constitutive process in which all participants change and are transformed through their actions in the world” (p. 159) Lecturing is not very “co-constitutive” but it’s a teaching strategy still heavily used today!  Brown et al. (as cited in Driscoll, 2005) indicate that students often end up having “inert knowledge” and are unable to apply what they’ve learned in real-life situations (p. 161).  I get the classic question in my math courses, "When are we going to use this in real life?"  Do we have to have an answer to this question every time?  Maybe not, but we should at least indicate to the students where they are going, why, and make the material applicable as much as possible.  Driscoll also notes that learners should be able to be able to be an “apprentice”, interact with the learning community, and be allowed to reflect critically on their learning.  Lecturing is one way – but it’s still so popular!  I guess you can think critically after the lecture when you are at home.  So, open-learning and situated learning could go hand in hand.  It allows one to access to learning, all the while being social at the same time.

I do feel efforts are being made for collaborative learning.  I was just discussing with my grade 12 students about course selections at the university for next year.  Many signed up for “learning communities”.  Online courses are offering opportunities to collaborate, even from a distance.  Is anything else being done, or is the change occurring at a slower rate than it should?  Or, is it just policy holding us back?

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

     A&B

OPEN EDUCATION? Is technology allowing us to really access information?

I was recently introduced to the name David Wiley (@opencontent) by Rick Schwier (@schwier)  Dave Wiley is a strong proponent of open education, a discipline where the belief is that there should be no obstacle to learning and that education should be easily accessible.  There is a strong focus on sharing.  One would think that with the explosion and immediacy of the internet and other technologies that we are open with our learning and have access to endless opportunities.  I have learned that this isn’t necessarily the case, simply due to policy.

Education is mired in policy – often in ones that David Wiley refers to as “Draconian” – that inhibit collaboration between learners, as well as between learners and their instructors.

I have been in professional development meetings for the better part of the week with groups of teachers more than willing to share knowledge, resources, and skills.  Is this an example of situated cognition?  We sat, discussed, and shared for hours, and before we knew it the day was over.  It was great to hear them talk about posting our ideas to wikis, websites, and sharing via email.  I can see in our profession that things, maybe even slowly, could be changing.  The expression “why reinvent the wheel if someone else here has done something effective” kept popping up. If it’s suitable for us who are already in the workplace to use sharing strategies to learn, is this shift occurring in higher education?  People just need to be given the chance, and be allowed to collaborate and learn.

His presentation gave me much food for thought.  Everything he says makes perfect sense.  Why is there so much resistance?  Take a look what he has to say:

LINK TO SLIDES ONLY:

http://www.slideshare.net/opencontent/openness-and-the-future-of-education

Especially interesting are his views on the role of what he refers to as “new media/Tech”.  He sees it as a way to increase our capacity to be generous.  What good is there in hoarding your knowledge?  

I look forward to your responses about “outdated ways of thinking”?  What changes can be made?  How do these changes happen?

So, thanks David for sharing with us.  Thank Rick for sharing with me.  Now I am sharing with everyone else.  Feel free to share my blog post!

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