Sunday 29 October 2017

Reflection on Distance Learning

Introduction

Distance learning has gone through three generations technologically linked pedagogy, from print and post, to mass media telecommunications such as television, radio and film, and a third generation, driven by more interactive network supported technologies, as exemplified by the world wide web (Anderson & Dron, n.d.). The first two generations were typified by a “one-to-many” delivery system, where information flowed out in a largely one way direction from instructor to student (Simonson, Smaldino, & Zvacek, 2015). The third generation saw a great increase in “many-to-many” learning, where student-student interactions were far more common. It has been argued that this evolution has been driven by, and contains many similarities to, industrialization in the manufacturing sector. Otto Peters’ theory of industrialization of teaching (Simonson et al., 2015) drew comparisons between the specialization of roles in developing and delivering learning content, and the mass production of books and educational resources, to the production of commercial goods. Now some argue, we are entering a fourth generation, one of more “intelligent flexible learning”, driven by algorithms and other technology enhancements, along with associated changes in teaching theory and practice (Anderson, & Dron, 2012).

Pros and Cons

A great many studies suggest that distance learning (and increasingly this means online learning), produces equivalent outcomes to that which takes place in face-to-face on-site institutional learning (Fonolahi, Jokhan, & others., 2014; Kuo, Walker, Belland & Schroder, 2013; Naidu, 2014; Simonson et al., 2015). While there have been some who question the validity of this research (Miron, Horvitz, Gulosino, Huerta, Rice, Shafer, & Cuban, 2013; Xu, & Jaggars, 2013), it appears that market demands will ensure that online learning is here to stay for the foreseeable future. The MIT-Harvard led, free online course and certification program, edX had over 10 million students in 2016, while Coursera enrolled over 23 million (Shah, 2016). Overall, 1 in 4 higher education students in America are enrolled in an online course (“Report: One in four students”, 2016). Demand for access to low cost education is growing globally. At edX they hope to one day serve over a billion students at a time (Regalado, 2012).

Perceptions

Whatever the perceptions of distance learning are now, they will almost certainly improve over the next few years. As people come to accept technology as part of life, and use it for daily communication and personal interactions, they will increasingly see it as a viable option for learning as well (“The future of education”, n.d.). In addition, the lessons of the past are used to improve the products of tomorrow. Competition will also drive the adoption of best practices, as technology allows for institutes to compete internationally for students. The expectations of quality from the enormous number of potential students looking to enroll each year will create pressure for these online programs to match the rigor of on-campus programs (Agarwal & Paucek, 2015). Of course perception is unlikely to ever surpass reality in any long term or meaningful way. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. That means the best way to improve perception is to improve the quality of online learning.
My job as an instructional designer includes acting as an ambassador for effective learning systems. This includes technology, theory and processes. As such it is important that I am able to speak with knowledge and authority on the relative strengths and weaknesses of online programs and supporting technology. To do this I must stay up to date of current trends and research findings, and take opportunities to share this information with policy makers and the public when possible. I do feel however, that the most important thing I can do, is ensure the products I work on are developed using sound instructional systems design practices, and follow appropriate learning theory.

The Future

At some point, probably in the not too distance future, a technology development of some type will produce another paradigm shift in learning. It was only 28 years ago that the World Wide Web, followed by the release of the Netscape Browser in 1994, changed the face of online course delivery. By enabling easy to create hyperconnected media, digital learning content could be instantly delivered to millions of students. The first iPhone was introduced to the U.S. in 2007 (“8 Years of the iPhone”, 2014), and sparked a revolution in the use of social media and on-the-go access to the Web. At some point soon, a new technology will almost certainly create new opportunities for online learning. Quite possibly this will be the aforementioned flexible and individualized learning.
Tools of the past enabled mass production of course content and delivery, providing greater access to more people (Simonson et al., 2015), but it was one size fits all. New tools are being developed to allow custom fit courses and content in a variety of ways. Badge systems and focused accreditation programs such as edX’s MicroMasters (Shah, 2016) provide increased options for students. Algorithms that can read your emotional state and adjust the presentation of material offer more personalized study (Kaliouby, 2017; Paul, 2014). During the initial stages, there will likely be mixed feelings about efficiency and efficacy. But if good instructional design practices are adhered to, improved outcomes, followed by positive perceptions, are likely to follow.
Previous generations of technology enhanced pedagogy and andragogy overlapped and merged (Anderson, & Dron, 2012). Books are still used, and are more frequently electronic, video is distributed online more than on CD, and other forms of content and instructional interaction will also continue to find new and effective forms in the digital realm. It is only a matter of time before society as  no longer perceives a distinct line between distance learning and on-campus learning. Chip Paucek predicts that by 2020 “there will no longer be online or on-campus students. Just students” (Agarwal & Paucek, 2015). To me that also means there will no longer be online learning and on-campus learning, there will just be learning. People will instead be arguing the merits of tank VR learning versus transcranial stimulation learning. Or, more likely trying to figure out what to bother teaching at all now that AI and Robots are running everything. The rich will probably just inject their children with RNA knowledge packs. If current trends continue, which seems more than likely, computers twenty years from now will be 1,000 times as powerful as today, and human genome editing will be common (Satell, 2015). These developments suggest the world two decades from now is all but unimaginable.

Robin
  
References
8 Years of the iPhone: An interactive timeline. (2014, July 27). Retrieved from http://time.com/2934526/apple-iphone-timeline/
Agarwal, A. & Paucek, C. (2015, January 11). The future of online learning. Financial Times [Web site]. Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/f8a03bbe-9802-11e4-b4be-00144feabdc0?mhq5j=e5
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2012). Learning technology through three generations of technology enhanced distance education pedagogy. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ992485.pdf
Fonolahi, A. V., Jokhan, A., & others. (2014). Are students studying in the online mode faring as well as students studying in the face-to-face mode? Has equivalence in learning been achieved? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 598.
Kaliouby, R. (2017). Computers can now read your emotions. Here’s why that’s not as scary as it sounds. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/computers-can-now-read-your-emotions-here-s-why-that-s-not-as-scary-as-it-sounds/
Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1), 16–39.
Naidu, S. (2014). Looking back, looking forward: the invention and reinvention of distance education. Distance Education, 35(3), 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2014.961671
Miron, G., Horvitz, B., Gulosino, C., Huerta, L., Rice, J. K., Shafer, S. R., & Cuban, L. (2013). Virtual Schools in the US 2013: Politics, Performance, Policy, and Research Evidence. National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED558723
Paul, A.M. (2014). Computer tutors that can read students’ emotions. The Hechinger Report. Retrieved from http://hechingerreport.org/computer-tutors-can-read-students-emotions/
Regalado, A. (2012, November 2). The most important education technology in 200 years. Retrieved from http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506351/the-most-important-education-technology-in-200-years/
Report: One in four students enrolled in online courses. (2016, February 25). Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/news_item/report-one-four-students-enrolled-online-courses/
Satell, G. (2015). 3 Reasons to believe the singularity is near. Forbes [Web site]. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2016/06/03/3-reasons-to-believe-the-singularity-is-near/#6943f2157b39
Shah, D. (2016, December 13). edX's 2016: Year in review. Retrieved from https://www.class-central.com/report/edx-2016-review/
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (6th ed.) Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. S. (2013). The impact of online learning on students’ course outcomes: Evidence from a large community and technical college system. Economics of Education Review, 37, 46–57.

Sunday 22 October 2017

Face-to-Face to Distance Learning Course Conversion Guide: Optimizing Interaction


Introduction

Converting a course designed for face-to-face classroom environments and synchronous communication, to an online asynchronous environment, takes careful planning and preparation. Simply dumping material on a web site or producing video segments of lecture type sessions will not produce optimal learning outcomes (Simonson, Smaldino, & Zvacek, 2015). An in-depth guide is beyond the scope of this document, which serves as an overview, with a focus on the role of the instructor in a blended learning environment. This guide will focus on course conversion specific tasks, and does not include common project management elements. While providing a general introduction to the conversion process, this guide will focus on promoting optimal instructor-student and student-student communication.

Development of blended instruction courses must undergo the same process as any course, while starting with a collection of resources you may wish to reuse, and a list of existing learning outcomes. Because the method of delivery is changing however, these resources and outcomes must be examined, to determine if they will remain appropriate and applicable. Learning objectives may require modification, or removal. You may wish to add new objectives, to take advantage of new capabilities the online environment provides.

Abdous & He (2008) describe seven stages for online course development, including many project management requirements. Most of these stages also apply to course conversion. A modified version of their list is shown in Table 1, with the exact activities for some stages being adapted to accommodate existing resources and objectives.

Table 1: Stages of Course Conversion for Blended Delivery

Stage
Activities
Pre-planning Assessing capacity (infrastructure, instructors, and students). Understanding the foundational resources, restrictions, and abilities of the new blended learning environment.
Planning & Analysis Reviewing desired learning outcomes, assessment methods, and optimal delivery modes.
Development Developing the course environment, design, content, assessment instruments, and support materials.
Testing Beta testing course and support materials and processes. Revising as needed.
Delivery Launching course. Providing ongoing support for instructor and students, maintaining hardware and updating software. Evaluating results.

Facilitator Guidelines

Because many instructors may not have skills as facilitators in the online learning realm (and with online discussions in particular), it is important to provide them with training and support (Levy, 2003). Ensure that instructors are familiar and comfortable with their role before classes begin. Due to the partly asynchronous nature of the blended learning environment, instructors should provide clear contact information to students, along with times they can be reached.

Face-to-face instruction frequently takes the form of the instructor delivering content to the learners as a one-way presentation of information. With online instruction there is a shift to a facilitator role, where the instructor guides student-student, and student-content interactions. Rather than lecturing, the instructor acts as a coach and mentor (Perreault, Waldman, Alexander, & Zhao, 2002; Simonson et al., 2015; Siragusa, Dixon, & Dixon, 2007). With a blended learning environment students can gain the benefits of both models. Community can be established quickly face-to-face, while more critical and reflective dialogue can occur in the online space (Mathur & Oliver, 2007; Pillay, & Alexander, 2015).

One of the primary tasks for instructors managing an online course is facilitating online discussions, such as those which take place through Web 2.0 tools like threaded discussion boards. Table 3 provides guidelines that instructors can follow when facilitating these types of online discussions. A summary version of this table can be found in Appendix 1: Quick Guide to Facilitating Online Discussions, and used as a checklist. The overall objective is to maintain a positive social presence, while encouraging constructive student-to-student interactions and reflective exploration of the topic.

Table 3: Do's and Don’ts for Facilitating Online Discussions

Do
Provide clear expectations and guidelines for acceptable behaviour right at the start of the course. (Palloff & Pratt, 2000, October; Simonson et al., 2015).
Make an extra effort to be positive and encouraging with initial discussions, when students are the most anxious (Perreault et al., 2002).
Provide a safe space for discussions (Freeman, n.d.; Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005; Pillay & Alexander, 2015; Simonson et al., 2015).
Act as a coach, or mentor. Provide motivation and positive responses. Help move the conversion along as needed by asking further open ended questions (Rovai, 2007).
Make students feel they are part of a group (Siragusa, et al., 2007).
Provide prompt feedback (Crews & Wilkinson, 2015; Simonson et al., 2015).
Allow time for student reflection conversation (Freeman, n.d.; Rovai, 2007).
Provide structure and scaffolding (Maor, 2003; Yonders 2014).
Wrap up/summarize the discussion at the end of the scheduled time allotted, or once the conversation has run its course (Rovai, 2007).
Don’t
Dominate discussions. Stay in the background while ensuring conversation moves forward and stays on topic (Freeman, n.d.)
Allow conversations to get off-topic (Maor, 2003). Step in as needed to guide the conversation back on track.
Allow a small number of students dominate the conversation (Freeman, n.d.; Moar, 2003; Rovai, 2007). Encourage quieter students to contribute by contacting them privately if needed (Rovai, 2007).
Put people down. Critique ideas, not the person who has them.
Ask for citations if not required for overall program goals and learning objectives (Crews & Wilkinson, 2015). This has been shown to reduce discussion depth and reduce meaningful learning in some cases.

In addition to discussion management, course facilitators must communicate deadlines and schedule information, and provide updates on progress every week or two (Simonson et al., 2015). Expectations for submissions and participation should be made clear (Palloff, & Pratt, 2000, October). In addition to a course syllabus, assignment or project requirements should be communicated again when appropriate. Assessment rubrics should be provided if used, as these have been shown to consistently improve depth of discussion and learning outcomes (Gilbert & Dabbagh, 2005). In some cases it may also be beneficial to co-construct rubrics or assessment instruments with learners.

Facilitator Resources


Here are further resources with valuable information regarding the role of the facilitator in an online course, and how to develop courses that promote effective learner interaction and communication.


References

Abdous, M, & He, W. (2008). Streamlining the online course development process by using project management tools. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 9(2), p. 181–188.
Cooper, S. (2016). Choosing a learning management system: 9 things to consider if you’re new to the LMS world. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/choosing-a-learning-management-system-9-things-consider-youre-new-lms-world
Clark, D. (1999). Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Domains. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html
Crews, T. B., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Online quality course design vs. quality teaching: Aligning quality matters standards to principles for good teaching. The Journal of Research in Business Education, 57(1), 47.
Freeman, J. (n.d.) Using discussions in online courses:  The importance of interactivity. Retrieved from https://academics.utep.edu/Portals/844/nofo/Using%20Discussions%20in%20Online%20Courses.pdf
Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5–18.
Levy, S. (2003). Six factors to consider when planning online distance learning programs in higher education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, (6)1. State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring61/levy61.htm
Maor, D. (2003). The teacher’s role in developing interaction and reflection in an online learning community. Educational Media International, 40(1–2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/0952398032000092170
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mathur, R., Oliver, L. (2007). Developing an international distance education program: A blended learning approach. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 10(4)
University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center. Retrieved from
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter104/mathur104.html
Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2000, October). Making the transition: Helping teachers to teach online. Paper presented at EDUCASE, Orlando, FL. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3dd1/bab45517e01cf9a4ad8c924781b23156b792.pdf
Pillay, R., & Alexander, L. (2015). The continuing pedagogical value of discussion forums in open and distance learning and face-to-face contexts. Progressio, 37(1), 33–53.
Rovai, A. P. (2007). Facilitating online discussions effectively. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.001
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (6th ed.) Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Siragusa, L., Dixon, K. C., & Dixon, R. (2007). Designing quality e-learning environments in higher education. Proceedings Ascilite Singapore, 923–935.
Wright, C. R., Lopes, V., Montgomerie, T. C., Reju, S. A., & Schmoller, S. (2014). Selecting a learning management system: Advice from an Academic Perspective. EDUCAUSE Review. Available at: http://er.educause.edu/articles/2014/4/selecting-a-learning-management-system-advice-from-an-academic-perspective



Appendix 1: Quick Guide to Facilitating Online Discussions

Facilitator Checklist for Online Discussions

Do

Provide clear expectations and guidelines for acceptable behaviour

Make an extra effort for initial discussions when students are most anxious

Provide a safe space for discussions

Act as a coach or mentor- Provide motivation and positive responses

Make students feel they are part of a group

Provide prompt feedback

Allow time for student reflection on the conversation

Provide structure and scaffolding

Wrap up/summarize discussion when time is up, or conversation has run its course
Don’t

Dominate discussions

Allow a small number of students dominate the conversation

Allow conversations to get off-topic

Ask for citations if not required for overall program goals and learning objectives

Put people down, critique ideas, not people