Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Testing and Teaching Alignment
This will be a short post as my point is going to be a simple one. For the most part I am in complete agreement with Scott Howell. However there is something I want to add to the discussion.
For sure, assessment should be a priority, and ought to be correctly designed before instruction is designed. There is one major step missing (which may have been assumed by Scott, but I still think it should be clear).
Before even thinking about assessment, learning objectives should be clearly understood and articulated. These should clearly show what learners should be able to do or be able to show by the end of the learning experience. Objectives should have real life meaning to the learners and it should be simple to show how the objectives are linked to their current life or immediate future.
Assessments/measurements should be designed and aligned based on the clear learning objectives.
Instruction should be aligned with the assessments/measurements which are aligned with the objectives.
In effect, this means that we would be "teaching to the test". I feel that teaching to the test is perfectly reasonable as long as the test and the objectives are correctly developed, aligned, and meaningful.
It my view, which is similar to Scott's, instruction should be subservient to assessment/measurement which should be subservient to learning objectives, which should be subservient to real life requirements.
For sure, assessment should be a priority, and ought to be correctly designed before instruction is designed. There is one major step missing (which may have been assumed by Scott, but I still think it should be clear).
Before even thinking about assessment, learning objectives should be clearly understood and articulated. These should clearly show what learners should be able to do or be able to show by the end of the learning experience. Objectives should have real life meaning to the learners and it should be simple to show how the objectives are linked to their current life or immediate future.
Assessments/measurements should be designed and aligned based on the clear learning objectives.
Instruction should be aligned with the assessments/measurements which are aligned with the objectives.
In effect, this means that we would be "teaching to the test". I feel that teaching to the test is perfectly reasonable as long as the test and the objectives are correctly developed, aligned, and meaningful.
It my view, which is similar to Scott's, instruction should be subservient to assessment/measurement which should be subservient to learning objectives, which should be subservient to real life requirements.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
COI Framework
I have spent the last year studying this framework as a central part of my dissertation direction. Therefore I am not sure how I can give any fresh approach that will be an interesting post! My point of view is that the COI is an interesting framework but I do not think that it is by any means a complete view of learning or a complete view of what is needed to create a perfect learning environment. However, that does not mean that it is not a useful framework. There are without questions elements of truth, and it provides some constructs that are useful for some measurement and discussion of learning experiences and environments.
For my research, the framework, and accompanying measurement instrument is helpful in defining constructs that help me to identify strengths and weaknesses in the model of learning that I am developing. The framework gives me a common language that I can use to discuss elements and principles of my model. In this instance I am using the COI framework to help me analyze the benefits and issues of my model, and to hence improve the model.
The COI could also be used as a framework for designing instruction. However, I would recommend that if it is to be used as a model for design, that a designer first establish that the assumptions within the framework match their own assumptions about learning. For example, the framework is named "Community of Inquiry" which gives me the immediate impression that the framework assumes that learning is a thing to do with inquiry. It is not named the community of instruction for a reason. I am personally a little shy of claiming that learning is one thing or another in its essence, or even that it should be one thing or another. I would rather concentrate on given objectives, and student context, motivations, demographics and so forth to determine design constraints. In my mind learning can be different things in different situations and I do not like making categorizations that force design and research down one particular road.
Anyway, after using the framework as part of my research, what I think I have discovered is that there is something major missing from its underlying principles. I feel that the framework omits the principle of humanness. COI mentions community and presence, but seems to do so in a mostly functional manner. What I am trying to say is that the framework seems to suggest that if students do certain things, or converse in certain ways, or if teachers structure their course in certain ways then all is well. There does not seem to be any room for what students are "like" or what instructors are "like" and the nature of communication between real people. The care and concern of a teacher, or the natural empathy and care from one student to another are not process, function, or structural constructs. They are mostly about ways of "being". My particular bias is that good human qualities, or ways of being, are incredibly powerful and necessary to create a great learning environment that has the power to create longer term learning and appreciation for learning and the people involved in the learning environment. I believe that human to human mentoring and empathetic motivational power is perhaps the most powerful element of useful learning experiences especially when one of the learning objectives is to affect change and personal human nature progression. Skills can be learned without the humanness I am describing, that is true, but there seems to be something valuable missing from the world when people are not picking up and assimilating the traits of other (hopefully better) people.
All this being said, I would probably not use the COI as a framework for the design of instruction as it does not account from the kind of human connections and ways of being that I think are important, but I would certainly use elements of the framework that I do think for the most part provide a useful template.
For my research, the framework, and accompanying measurement instrument is helpful in defining constructs that help me to identify strengths and weaknesses in the model of learning that I am developing. The framework gives me a common language that I can use to discuss elements and principles of my model. In this instance I am using the COI framework to help me analyze the benefits and issues of my model, and to hence improve the model.
The COI could also be used as a framework for designing instruction. However, I would recommend that if it is to be used as a model for design, that a designer first establish that the assumptions within the framework match their own assumptions about learning. For example, the framework is named "Community of Inquiry" which gives me the immediate impression that the framework assumes that learning is a thing to do with inquiry. It is not named the community of instruction for a reason. I am personally a little shy of claiming that learning is one thing or another in its essence, or even that it should be one thing or another. I would rather concentrate on given objectives, and student context, motivations, demographics and so forth to determine design constraints. In my mind learning can be different things in different situations and I do not like making categorizations that force design and research down one particular road.
Anyway, after using the framework as part of my research, what I think I have discovered is that there is something major missing from its underlying principles. I feel that the framework omits the principle of humanness. COI mentions community and presence, but seems to do so in a mostly functional manner. What I am trying to say is that the framework seems to suggest that if students do certain things, or converse in certain ways, or if teachers structure their course in certain ways then all is well. There does not seem to be any room for what students are "like" or what instructors are "like" and the nature of communication between real people. The care and concern of a teacher, or the natural empathy and care from one student to another are not process, function, or structural constructs. They are mostly about ways of "being". My particular bias is that good human qualities, or ways of being, are incredibly powerful and necessary to create a great learning environment that has the power to create longer term learning and appreciation for learning and the people involved in the learning environment. I believe that human to human mentoring and empathetic motivational power is perhaps the most powerful element of useful learning experiences especially when one of the learning objectives is to affect change and personal human nature progression. Skills can be learned without the humanness I am describing, that is true, but there seems to be something valuable missing from the world when people are not picking up and assimilating the traits of other (hopefully better) people.
All this being said, I would probably not use the COI as a framework for the design of instruction as it does not account from the kind of human connections and ways of being that I think are important, but I would certainly use elements of the framework that I do think for the most part provide a useful template.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Blended Learning
The readings on blended learning are really interesting. The papers show that researchers are attempting to set down guidelines and rationales for practices in blended learning as a fairly new and emerging field. There are a fair amount of publications promoting various ideals for education in general which are used to try and define the rules for blended learning. There is something revealed in this literature that is troubling to me. While there are various models of what "good" education should look like, it seems that there is very little research to show why that education should be done in a face to face environment. If this is the case, then what is the foundation for the argument that education should be blended? Where is the basis for stating that some of the educational process should be face to face? I can imagine that researchers who are fully committed to the distance learning as a solution may question the value of blended learning. They may well say that all educational design principles can be acheived in a fully online environment, and there would be little in the way of research showing the distinct value of close priximity face to face education to stand in the way of that argument. Do we just have a universal agreement that face to face education is a good thing? Where is the data to show that it is? If blended learning really is a good thing, do we not need to produce better data that shows why the face to face part of it is of absolute necessity? If we can't do that, then why have blended at all? Just go for fully online.
I am not sure if I have explained my thoughts very well, but I would appreciate some discussion.
I am not sure if I have explained my thoughts very well, but I would appreciate some discussion.
Monday, February 16, 2009
K-12 Distance Education
The article by Tom Clark included a great deal of information that is difficult to summarise in any small report. As a general discussion of distance education in the K-12 environment, the historical trends were interesting. There seems to have been a push for education to take advantage of new dominant communication technologies each time there is a breakthrough. Radio, television, and the internet are examples. In my opinion, the noble part of all of the pushes for developments in distance education technologies for K-12 students is the desire to bring the benefits of education to all children in the nation, and also to improve the quality of education.
With all the data presented in the article, it seems logical to predict that distance education and in particular online education in K-12 will continue to spread, and continue to improve as technology continues to improve. There will probably be a desire to use online education with younger audiences. Until the present, distance education in K-12 has mostly been for high school, with some middle school level content. It is likely that opportunities will increase for elementary grade children to participate in online education.
With this in mind, the questions that I am left pondering include: at what age does online education become an option, what are the issues with younger age chilren? are the issues changing with the avances of technology and the prominence of technology in the home? what are the politics involved in questions of elementary aged children learning online? how much human interaction is really needed for the different aged children? is there an age at which close interaction is less needed? could young children learn to read and write without close human attention and human to human stimulus?
I feel that the biggest issues to deal with as the potential for change appears are the paradigms and traditions that are sometimes good and at other times hold us back. The education systems are permeated by such paradigms, traditions and opinions, and that may hold back the potential in K-12 distance education that the modern era of technology brings.
With all the data presented in the article, it seems logical to predict that distance education and in particular online education in K-12 will continue to spread, and continue to improve as technology continues to improve. There will probably be a desire to use online education with younger audiences. Until the present, distance education in K-12 has mostly been for high school, with some middle school level content. It is likely that opportunities will increase for elementary grade children to participate in online education.
With this in mind, the questions that I am left pondering include: at what age does online education become an option, what are the issues with younger age chilren? are the issues changing with the avances of technology and the prominence of technology in the home? what are the politics involved in questions of elementary aged children learning online? how much human interaction is really needed for the different aged children? is there an age at which close interaction is less needed? could young children learn to read and write without close human attention and human to human stimulus?
I feel that the biggest issues to deal with as the potential for change appears are the paradigms and traditions that are sometimes good and at other times hold us back. The education systems are permeated by such paradigms, traditions and opinions, and that may hold back the potential in K-12 distance education that the modern era of technology brings.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Articles - Findings
I was not sure how to synthesise the findings as they are all different!
What seemed consistent to me is that there was no such thing as an objective study in that none of them found contrary to the premise of the study.
Some of the articles were research discussions, and these obviously had conlcusions related to their own take on theory.
To me, the most interesting findings were in the practical report articles where authors discussed their own class, or a real live set of circumstances. These findings seemed to me to be more open and accepting of problems and negative issues that had arisen, and I learned more from these.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Theoretical Framework
A few of the articles do not have any kind of what I consider to be a theoretical framework. To be fair, these articles probably didn't need one due their nature as either a historical review, or pragmatic discussion of actual practices.From those that do have theoretical frameworks, they are varied.
One is based on Vygotsky and what the author describes as social constructivism.
Another is based on the media/method debate/theories and also on the synchronous/asynchronous debate/theories.
Another is based on theoretical definitions of interactivity, which could also come somewhat under the theories of dialog.
Others have various theoretical themes. These were undeclared in that I had to extrapolate them from the article.
Computer conferences and group learning
My head is spinning a bit, so it might be nonsense! (So what's new I hear you ask!)
Monday, January 26, 2009
Articles - Methods
Summary
Theoretical Development x 4
Case Study x 3
Historical Study
Qualitative study
Rhetorical Argument
Case studies were either based on interviews or reports of statements and comments made from different sources.
No real distinction between collection and analysis: This is based on the style of the publication
Theoretical Development x 4
Case Study x 3
Historical Study
Qualitative study
Rhetorical Argument
Case studies were either based on interviews or reports of statements and comments made from different sources.
No real distinction between collection and analysis: This is based on the style of the publication
Transactional Distance etc.
Theory of Transactional Distance
From the two papers that focused on transactional distance I am making the following remarks:
It seemed to me that in essence two principles were important in the transactional distance theory which are:
1. Amount of dialog in a learning experience
2. Amount of structure in a learning experience
I felt that the use of the term transactional distance was unhelpful as it does not seem to mean anything in and of itself, and other terms have to be used to describe it. I would have preferred to be discussing the amount of dialog and the amount of structure rather than imposing a name on those things which does not mean anything. Other than that the theory was fairly simple to understand.
In relationship to the above two priciples, Moore makes the claim that the amount of either or both of those principles required in a learning experience is dependant particularly upon the type of learner. Moore claims that highly motivated learners need less dialogue and are happy with more structure. In effect, he is saying that motivated learners like more autonomy. He states that: "the greater the transactional distance - the more autonomy the students will exercise. (as they will make their own decisions as to what they will do, what they will leave out, and how they will negotiate the structure)."
Therefore, in Moore's view there appears to be a relationship between dialog, structure, and learner autonomy. Moore even states that it is better for highyl motivated learners to have a higher degree of transactional distance, as they want to get on with it in their own way and find their own way to fulfilling the course objectives.
While it seems fairly logical that this is true, what worries me is that it is implied that the only important part of learning is the content and skills objectives. There is no room in this theory for the value of interaction in and of itself. I would argue that a major ingredient in the growth of learning individuals (which is all of us!) is the way we change and grow based on our experiences with other (and hopefully better in some way) people.
If this is true, then it may be true that a different level of transactional distance may assist different types of learners in acheiving the stated objectives of a course, but ALL students benefit in their individual life's growth by having a high level of dialog with an expert/mentor/genrally nice person/or whatever. As long as the person who is acting in the position of instructor is not a negative influence, then it seems to me that something good is missing in any learning experience if there is no relationship between a learner and an instructor.
After discussing the theory of transactional distance, Moore eventually presented some elements of distance education that need to be considered. This was a more practical element to these papers which was refreshing:
According to Moore there are six processes that need to be structured:
Presentation
Support of the learners Motivation
Stimulate analysis and criticism
Give advice and counsel
Arrange practice, application, testing, and evaluation
Arrange for student creation of knowledge
I think this is a fairly good list that can be used to design distance learning experiences.
Three Types of Interaction
Moore outlines three types of interaction which in his view are the only forms of interaction. He may be right, as so far I cannot think of any others! But I would guess that someone will add one at some point.
Learner-Content Interaction
Moore makes the statement that "without it there cannot be learning". I think this should be an interesting debate. Do we only learn when there some explicit content in the mix? Do we learn thing from people that rub off on us and change our minds and personalities? Can that be described as learner-content interaction? Hmmm... Let the debate begin!
Learner-Instructor Interaction
According to Moore, this is regarded as essential by many educators and as highly desirable by many learners - it is interaction between the learner and the expert who prepared the subject material, or some other expert acting as instructor.
My question is: Why does it need to be an expert? Can there be any other kind of interaction except with an expert? Can there be interaction with a guide who knows nothing of the content that is nonetheless beneficial? Let another debate begin!
Learner-Learner Interaction
Moore seems to struggle to find justification for the importance of this third type of interaction as an essential element. It seems that the former two interactions are generally accepted as necessary, whearas learner-learner interaction is up for debate. He uses research by others to build the case. For example, he cites phillips, santoro, and kuehn (1988) who describe the importance of interaction among members of an undergraduate class who had to learn skills of group interaction. The rationale for collaboartive learning was that skilled committee and other group work is essential for functioning in modern society especially in business. I think this is worth discussing further, I think it could be argued many ways, which is maybe why Moore is not so insistant on this interaction.
Interestingly, this research included the use of recorded video to facilitate group discussion! This was before the internet, so it must have been on VHS or something similar. So asynchronous video is not a new concept!
Moore's final comment was about the need for multiple approaches for the different kinds of interaction that he describes. He states: "In short it is vitally important that distance educators in all media do more to plan for all three kinds of interaction, and use the expertise of educators and communication specialists in both traditional media - printed, broadcast, or recorded - and newer teleconference material."
What I appreciate about Moore
Altough I don't particularly like the theoretical decriptions of transactional distance, I do like Moore's general attitude as far I have interpreted it. In a discussion of the complaints that Peters makes against Moore's claims, Moore does not try to state that he has all the truth, but rather accepts that his theory is a detailed theory and the other theories have there place as higher level, and there is room for many other detailed theories. Thus Moore accepts that there are many ways to explain and describe distance education at various levels, and multiple theories may be valid or useful.
From the two papers that focused on transactional distance I am making the following remarks:
It seemed to me that in essence two principles were important in the transactional distance theory which are:
1. Amount of dialog in a learning experience
2. Amount of structure in a learning experience
I felt that the use of the term transactional distance was unhelpful as it does not seem to mean anything in and of itself, and other terms have to be used to describe it. I would have preferred to be discussing the amount of dialog and the amount of structure rather than imposing a name on those things which does not mean anything. Other than that the theory was fairly simple to understand.
In relationship to the above two priciples, Moore makes the claim that the amount of either or both of those principles required in a learning experience is dependant particularly upon the type of learner. Moore claims that highly motivated learners need less dialogue and are happy with more structure. In effect, he is saying that motivated learners like more autonomy. He states that: "the greater the transactional distance - the more autonomy the students will exercise. (as they will make their own decisions as to what they will do, what they will leave out, and how they will negotiate the structure)."
Therefore, in Moore's view there appears to be a relationship between dialog, structure, and learner autonomy. Moore even states that it is better for highyl motivated learners to have a higher degree of transactional distance, as they want to get on with it in their own way and find their own way to fulfilling the course objectives.
While it seems fairly logical that this is true, what worries me is that it is implied that the only important part of learning is the content and skills objectives. There is no room in this theory for the value of interaction in and of itself. I would argue that a major ingredient in the growth of learning individuals (which is all of us!) is the way we change and grow based on our experiences with other (and hopefully better in some way) people.
If this is true, then it may be true that a different level of transactional distance may assist different types of learners in acheiving the stated objectives of a course, but ALL students benefit in their individual life's growth by having a high level of dialog with an expert/mentor/genrally nice person/or whatever. As long as the person who is acting in the position of instructor is not a negative influence, then it seems to me that something good is missing in any learning experience if there is no relationship between a learner and an instructor.
After discussing the theory of transactional distance, Moore eventually presented some elements of distance education that need to be considered. This was a more practical element to these papers which was refreshing:
According to Moore there are six processes that need to be structured:
Presentation
Support of the learners Motivation
Stimulate analysis and criticism
Give advice and counsel
Arrange practice, application, testing, and evaluation
Arrange for student creation of knowledge
I think this is a fairly good list that can be used to design distance learning experiences.
Three Types of Interaction
Moore outlines three types of interaction which in his view are the only forms of interaction. He may be right, as so far I cannot think of any others! But I would guess that someone will add one at some point.
Learner-Content Interaction
Moore makes the statement that "without it there cannot be learning". I think this should be an interesting debate. Do we only learn when there some explicit content in the mix? Do we learn thing from people that rub off on us and change our minds and personalities? Can that be described as learner-content interaction? Hmmm... Let the debate begin!
Learner-Instructor Interaction
According to Moore, this is regarded as essential by many educators and as highly desirable by many learners - it is interaction between the learner and the expert who prepared the subject material, or some other expert acting as instructor.
My question is: Why does it need to be an expert? Can there be any other kind of interaction except with an expert? Can there be interaction with a guide who knows nothing of the content that is nonetheless beneficial? Let another debate begin!
Learner-Learner Interaction
Moore seems to struggle to find justification for the importance of this third type of interaction as an essential element. It seems that the former two interactions are generally accepted as necessary, whearas learner-learner interaction is up for debate. He uses research by others to build the case. For example, he cites phillips, santoro, and kuehn (1988) who describe the importance of interaction among members of an undergraduate class who had to learn skills of group interaction. The rationale for collaboartive learning was that skilled committee and other group work is essential for functioning in modern society especially in business. I think this is worth discussing further, I think it could be argued many ways, which is maybe why Moore is not so insistant on this interaction.
Interestingly, this research included the use of recorded video to facilitate group discussion! This was before the internet, so it must have been on VHS or something similar. So asynchronous video is not a new concept!
Moore's final comment was about the need for multiple approaches for the different kinds of interaction that he describes. He states: "In short it is vitally important that distance educators in all media do more to plan for all three kinds of interaction, and use the expertise of educators and communication specialists in both traditional media - printed, broadcast, or recorded - and newer teleconference material."
What I appreciate about Moore
Altough I don't particularly like the theoretical decriptions of transactional distance, I do like Moore's general attitude as far I have interpreted it. In a discussion of the complaints that Peters makes against Moore's claims, Moore does not try to state that he has all the truth, but rather accepts that his theory is a detailed theory and the other theories have there place as higher level, and there is room for many other detailed theories. Thus Moore accepts that there are many ways to explain and describe distance education at various levels, and multiple theories may be valid or useful.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
History of distance ED links
I was trying to find some info on the development of distance ed to see how it related to the industrial age. Here are 2 links that I found that are interesting:
Here is a good summary page for the major turning points in distance ed:
http://www.bakersguide.com/Distance_Education_Timeline/
I got to that site from a link on the following, which is also interesting
http://www.dandelife.com/story/21355
Here is a good summary page for the major turning points in distance ed:
http://www.bakersguide.com/Distance_Education_Timeline/
I got to that site from a link on the following, which is also interesting
http://www.dandelife.com/story/21355
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
