I recognize now that I’ve been quite privileged to work where I do. I have worked for a number of years in an organization specializing in online “Adult Education”. I knew little to nothing about education and pedagogy when I started, and the key part of my initial training was to understand that adult online learners, as we defined them, were living and learning under a different set of circumstances than children or full-time university students. Adult online learners might work full-time; they might have variable work shifts; they might be parents; they might live in remote communities; they might have limited Internet connectivity; they might have limited finances; they might have limited computing equipment; they might have limited computing facility; etc. In summary, under no circumstances could we assume that an adult, online learner’s primary responsibility was their learning – in fact, the opposite was likely true. We could also assume, sometimes, that they were self-motivated by reasons of improving or changing their careers, salary, effectiveness, knowledge base, and more.
Under the above assumptions, we designed courses that rarely required synchronous attendance; that provided multiple ways to access material (audio or video, but also transcripts and presentation files); that allowed sufficient time between deadlines to provide flexibility in time management; that were carefully built to modern accessibility standards; that explicitly permitted the submission of files created in open-source (read: free) applications; that were supported with fulsome, extended-hours support by email or phone.
Further, because we made the assumption that adult, online learners were motivated not by “getting grades” but rather by learning new skills and gaining new knowledge, we designed courses with little to no quizzes, exams, or other such summative evaluations. All activities, graded or not, were designed as formative – learning by doing. Activities were built to be as authentic to the subject matter as possible. Dialogue between learners was considered crucial to the process, allowing them to develop their own understandings of the material.
Needless to say, the topics we have covered in this course on Online and Open Learning have struck me as very familiar. The courses I helped build and support professionally were built carefully, with clear cognitivist and constructivist (both social and not) pedagogy behind them. Students were given as much freedom as possible to complete activities that were both authentic to the subject matter and to themselves. Principles of accessibility were persistently top of mind, such that our courses could be said to be built with Design by Accessibility. Concepts of UDL were emerging and integrated constantly.
Topic 4, and in particular the reading by Cronin (2019), represents to me where things are going next. The concept of emancipatory open education is eye-opening for me. Although we did a great job with (let’s call it) “Generation 1” of open education – Cronin (2019) describes it as “empowering individuals and groups within existing structures” – we are only scraping at the surface of emancipatory open education, which we might call “Generation 2”. Within my limited scope of understanding, I can see that the “authentic” learning activities we designed were authentic to the current and localized practices and requirements of industries, groups and knowledge structures. We allowed space for individual authenticity within those structures, but evaluation was driven by learning outcomes defined by the “existing”.
We have now begun to discuss concepts such as the decolonization of learning. I cannot pretend that I only grasp at the edges of what that means and will look like in practice. How do we design “courses” that will both allow learners to operate within existing structures (so that they can get a job) while also emancipating them such that they can effect real, fundamental, small or large, change (while they’re “doing” that job) towards a more just, inclusive industry/culture/economy/society? I’m a white, Northern male with a desire to understand how to be part of such an effort. And not simply because of the injustices of the past and present, but because of the mere hint that such emancipatory open education practices could open worlds of new understanding. If anyone knows where I go from here, please comment below.
Cronin. C. (2019). Open education: Walking a critical path. In D. Conrad, & P. Prinsloo (Eds.), Open(ing) Education: Theory and Practice. Leiden: Brill. Open Access Version â http://eprints.teachingandlearning.ie/4345/
In Topic 3, Sharing Resources and Open Practices in Online & Open Learning, students were asked to complete a set of activities, including two I’ll discuss here:
Edit Wikipedia
Engage in a Twitter chat
In Wikipedia, our choice of activity was left quite open, and I chose to find a piece of information (an event that supposedly occurred on a Christmas Eve) that was tagged with a question (“which year?”). I researched the event described using sources such as a CBC article online, discovered that the event actually occurred on December 28, and corrected the error – while also adding the year, answering the question. I cited the CBC article as the source of my information.
On Twitter, our instructor posed a series of questions under the hashtag #edci339 for students to answer. We answered the questions with Tweets of our own, and then replied to each others’ answers. Though the instructor certainly provided the most individual feedback, we students did manage to take part in constructive dialogue, adding to each others’ ideas.
Both of these activities impressed on me something that has not been explicitly addressed in our readings – the heavy responsibility of being and open practitioner. Barbour (2019) refers to Wikipedia as “the Wild West of information”, but that can easily be broadened to include the Internet as a whole, and social media in particular. While Barbour is using the phrase to illustrate the need for a critical eye when reading such information, to me it emphasizes the need to be a careful contributor. Anything written on either Wikipedia or Twitter could be taken as fact. Any opinion presented as truth can colour readers’ perceptions and actions, as we’ve seen time and again in our so-called Post-Truth world.
Critically in the case of Twitter and other social media, ideas will inevitably be read, spread, amplified and combined with re-tweets, likes, and replies. The give and take that Bali (2017) describes as so important to open practice occurs without regard for the verifiability of data. The “empowering” nature of “open” (Bali, 2017) can serve to promote ideas based on anything. So it was that when I participated in a Twitter chat, I immediately felt the need to write with extraordinary care. Further, when I edited a Wikipedia article, I found myself profoundly unwilling to do more than I could (again, my edit was one very small fact correction and citation) with the time I had available and to the academic standards of sourcing that I know are crucial to a widely-read public source of knowledge.
On reflection, then, I believe that participating in open practices requires a commitment to presentation only of verifiable data, and the willingness to take the time and effort necessary to provide sources. On the one hand, students taking Barbour’s (2019) advice to be critical will have to spend more time independently verifying data they find on Wikipedia (as an example) if it does not include citation of sources. On the other, Bali’s (2019) empowering give and take of open practice can empower all the wrong things if falsehoods are presented as truth.
Topic 2 has seen us survey the history and development of online/distributed education, along with principles of open education, and how major learning theories fit and inform them. It has led me to think about a variety of learning environments that I’ve experienced over the past few years (among other things, Weller (2018) reminded me of my first visit to a conference called the ETUG (Educational Technology Users Group) Spring Workshop in 2007, when – just as Weller says – Second Life was the ‘buzz’ topic and several sessions had been presented to help introduce conference attendees to what many people saw as a huge opportunity to connect virtually.). Reflecting back, I find that it is next to impossible to recall a learning experience that could be described as built with just one of the learning theories as its pedagogy. I also find that many learning experiences were very much ‘partly open’ – crucially, it has always seemed to be a struggle to find institutional/financial support for fully open learning.
In a previous post, I discussed a powerful learning experience in which the vast majority of the learning occurred while my group collaborated on assignments (there was only one non-collaborative assignment). All course materials (readings) were copyrighted. We chose our collaborative technologies (Zoom and Google Docs let us talk and work on the same document simultaneously) and submitted our assignments to a Brightspace site for assessment. In one case, we created an instructional Tiktok video, so we can be seen to have shared a resource openly.
Hegarty (2015) describes eight attributes of Open Pedagogy. Here’s a quick assessment of the ‘openness’ of the course I took, based on these eight attributes:
Participatory technologies: There was no ‘official’ use of technologies other than Brightspace, a closed LMS. 0/10
People, openness, trust: We only succeeded in the course because of the trust, confidence and openness my group had for working together. We lucked out in finding each other and required no help in this regard from the instructor. The initial guidance from the instructor was to post a biography and then find a group. I’ll give the instructor a 2/10 for that basic effort.
Innovation & creativity: We were encouraged to find and create learning objects of our choice for the assignments, and the instructor was willing to accept and reward a Tiktok video (a relatively new technology) as our submission. 10/10
Sharing ideas & resources: There was no encouragement to share freely. 0/10
Connected community: We were not connected to any community of professionals (like, for instance, the OpenETC). 0/10
Learner generated: Although we generated a learning object, there was no mention of OER. 0/10
Reflective practice: The entire course was an opportunity for reflective practice. 10/10
Peer review: There was no encouragement to contribute to open critique of others’ scholarship. 0/10.
Based on my scores, the course, in general, either fully satisfied or completely ignored the attributes of open pedagogy. According to Hegarty (2015), it is important to engage with all of the attributes in order to “become [an] open practitioner”. So the course – and presumably the instructor – was not designed with open pedagogy in mind.
HOWEVER, here is an assessment of my group’s activity as part of the course:
Participatory technologies: We used Google Docs, Zoom, Tiktok and Discord as part of our efforts. 8/10
People, openness, trust: We succeeded in the course because of the trust, confidence and openness my group had for working together. It felt safe to argue over points of contention because of the mutual respect we achieved. 10/10
Innovation & creativity: We created, as learning object, a multimedia, accessible Tiktok video (a relatively new technology) to help viewers learn a skill. 10/10
Sharing ideas & resources: We freely shared our learning object on Tiktok. We didn’t post our other assignment deliverables to an open place. 8/10
Connected community: We connected, through each other, to communities of professionals in several disciplines. We didn’t directly connect our group to these communities though. 5/10
Learner generated: We generated a learning object, and were excited to share it on Tiktok. We had the spirit of OER, but didn’t do some of the formalities associated with OER. 5/10
Reflective practice: We spent huge amounts of time in reflective practice. Huge. 10/10
Peer review: We reviewed and edited each others’ contributions to our group projects, and provided feedback for each others’ individual projects 10/10.
As a result of this, I feel that my group could be described as aspiring open practitioners. For a subsequent collaboration, we are currently investigating how to appropriately assign it a CC license (it is hosted on opened.ca). What then can we say about the course we used as a basis for our open practice? I’m not sure I have the answer to that just yet.
My experience with Distance Learning began earlier than most in my generation. I ‘attended’ grades 8 through 12 via correspondence learning. This differs from home schooling, in that there is no direct involvement in correspondence learning by a parent. Course content was delivered in large binders of information and exercise sheets, and via textbooks. There were assignments and exams, with written responses from a teacher. It’s probably that those teachers were available to talk to on the phone, but I was never sure what I would talk to them about. There was zero interaction with other correspondence students. I did quite well, generally, at achieving good grades, including in standard provincial exams. Further, it seemed that I was reasonably well-prepared for success in undergraduate studies at university.
My most remarkable experience in online learning was earlier this year, in EDCI 335. The course, as presented by the instructor, was approximately 12 readings (articles – almost entirely by the instructor) and four assignments. Three of the assignments were to be done in a group with other students, and those accounted for 80% of the final grade. I was extremely fortunate to find a group of co-students to work with, all of whom were committed to excellence. As a group, we produced the equivalent of over 150 pages of deliverable assignment submissions. More importantly, as we worked through the assignments, we gave ourselves tasks and regularly met on Zoom for multiple hours at a time to discuss and refine what each of us had produced. My took each other very seriously and we laughed, argued, commiserated, reflected and built an incredibly rich understanding of Learning Design (the topic of the course).
If I’m to look at both experiences with the lens of the Community of Inquiry framework, they both leave me wondering about instructor presence. While both learning experiences could be said to be carefully planned, the only instances of instructors making themselves present came in the form of feedback to assignment submissions. As we read in a Week 3 article, the most common understanding of teacher presence is binary: it manifests in the design and facilitation of the learning experience (Barnes, 2016). While my two experiences attested to careful design, neither included meaningful facilitation. As a teenager, any learning I achieved beyond consumption and repetition of knowledge was due to my own efforts at cognitive presence. As an adult, I also benefited from the motivated social presence of my peers. From the teacher perspective, both learning experiences were ‘set it and forget it’.
The latter case makes me wonder especially about the role of instructor presence. While my group was, as mentioned, extraordinarily self-motivating, I can well imagine that other groups may have had less committed memberships and may have benefitted from teacher “communication prompts, feedback, and guidance” (Barnes, 2016) to keep them on track.
References
Barnes, C. (2016) Where’s the Teacher? Defining the Role of Instructor Presence in Social Presence and Cognition in Online Education. In W. Kilgore, Humanizing Online Teaching and Learning, 2016, licensed under CC by 4.0.
This object is meant to be accessed freely by learners or with the help of a facilitator. You will find all our original content within our Wellness Website which includes;
Infographics x 2
Prezi
Powerpoint (Learning Objectives)
Canva Tutorial
Polleverywhere Tutorial
PollEverywhere Poll
Screencastify Facilitator Guide
Padlet Experience
Interactive Google Doc
H5P Assessment
Canva Self-Assessment
Discussion
In the making of our Wellness website, we have implemented many learning theories and multimedia learning principles in order to effectively reach our learners, move the intended information to their long term memory storage and guide them to meet the intended learning outcomes. Below, we will discuss the many theories and principles we used, as well and how and why we implemented them.
We have designed and structured this website wearing the lensâ of Cognitive and Constructivist theorists. We have done this by taking a learner-centred approach, which encourages learners to build their own, contextualized understandings of the material. We encourage discovery through self-reflective, collaborative activities such as our Padlet. We provide a variety of available resources, so that learners can interpret the information that works best for their own context, and scaffoldnew understanding that is meaningful for them. We have presented an integrated set of material designed to encompass one usable body of knowledge and have sourced data- and science-driven materials as researched by experts in their fields. Finally, we acknowledge that learner success depends on learnersâ capacity, motivation, beliefs, and effort. Therefore, we included self-reflection activities after our learning resources in hopes that our learners will make a connection with the context and have them potentially alter their beliefs, spur motivation and effort; thereby expanding their capacity.We hope that through the above, we will change learnersâ metal models of what mental wellness means to them.
We first considered the Dual Coding and Cognitive Load Theories. A learner’s short term memory is limited and can be overloaded, causing information to be forgotten (Bates, 2019). Therefore, we chose to design our learning experience in a fashion that reduces load on working memory. Therefore, we chunked our website into sections and steps. We offer a variety of channels to obtain and retain information and we have ensured that learners have the time to explore the website and tinker with the information as they feel fit. This way, learners can assimilate that information at their own pace. We combined visual and verbal channels to allow our learners to better process more information.
Image 1. Video on the website that includes visual and verbal information which illustrates Dual-coding theory.
Next, we considered the Prior knowledge principle and the Pre-Training principle. âPeople learn better from a multimedia message when they know the names and characteristics of the main conceptsâ (Bates, 2019). Therefore, we chose to create an interactive padlet, which allows us to draw on learnersâ prior knowledge so that they can connect their experience to our presentation, give hints into what we will be diving into and provide a space where they can add information which they have learned from the website so that they, we, and others can refer back to it.
Image 2. Padlet home screen which draws on prior knowledge and acts as a reference to learning.
We added several videos which explain Mental Wellness which will help learners connect to this subject matter. We created learning objectives that will give learners a purposeful âhookâ into the material. Finally, we included a screencastify tutorial video, a canva tutorial and a section where the instructor walks the learner how to engage with the website, so that the learner can see what is expected of them and be given a sense of how to use the intended materials BEFORE the learning takes place.
Image 3. Recorded video showing instructors how to navigate and engage with the website.
Not only did the aforementioned screencastify aid in pretraining and prior knowledge, but it adhered to the Multimedia & Modality Principles which can help our learners learn better since there are spoken words and imagery rather than words alone (Bates, 2019). We adhere to these principles by providing a written lesson plan and a screencast of how the lesson can be taught. This allows the learner, or potential facilitator, to better see/understand what is expected of them due to several visual, audio and video representations.
All of the learning on the website is presented in multiple modes. We have both an infographic which explains how an active lifestyle can help mental wellness and a video.
Image 4. Partial Infographic
Image 5. Video as another representation of how exercise benefits mental wellness.
Multiple modes expose learners to the intended information in several ways so that, through repetition and re-representation, they take that learning into their long term memory storage. Within all of the videos and screencastify videos, we ensured to follow the Redundancy Principle. Since, learners learn better when there is only animation and narration (Bates, 2019), we chose to ensure that there were limited written words where we would be speaking. Therefore, in the screencasts, we did as much as we could to limit the amount of written text which came along with oral explanation. That being said, we allowed for transcription for those who are hearing-impaired.
We moved from the redundancy principle into The Signaling (or Cueing) Principle. âPeople learn better when cues are added that highlight the key information and its organizationâ (Bates, 2019). Therefore, we used a fade function in both our Prezi and PowerPoint which allowed for information to enter the screen when we spoke to it and ensured that only one piece of information was given at one time.
Image 5. Screen before fade in.
Image 6: Screen after fade in.
We demonstrate signaling again in our blogging. We highlighted the important information within the blog so that learners could easily pick out the important information. For example, blue text highlighted the links within the website and CAPITALIZED or bolded gave awareness toother important information.
Image 7. Important information is bolded.
We then came to the Spatial Contiguity Principle. Throughout all of our infographics, presentations and website we aimed to keep photos/images within close proximity to the text which relates to it. This way, the learners can make sense of the text by seeing the video/ images that relate to it in real time.
Image 8. Photo matches the descriptor of the website blog.
We then moved to the Segmenting Principle, which specifies that learners should be empowered to view content at their own pace (Bates, 2019).For instance, the Prezi can be viewed in sequence, but the movement through the different phases is user-controlled. The videos presented in the Prezi are from YouTube and have the expected functions enabling repetition, skipping backward and forward, and presentation speed. Further, the Preziâs individual elements can be freely navigated at the end. The website itself is also presented right-to-left, top-to-bottom, and is intended to be worked through in sequence. However, we have created it as separate pages in order to delineate the sections of the lesson for the learner, and to allow easy reference to any individual part of the site. The pages are self-contained and have their own value. We hope that learners see this and feel it useful to be able to easily navigate to any one of them when it suits them.
Image 9. Ordered blog posts presented on the wellness website.
Moving forward, we followed some of the characteristics of Instructional Design Models, createdby Branch and Merrill, which are described as follows. Our website and lessons are learner-centred. We draw upon learnersâ prior knowledge and experience by asking them to continually self-reflect as they work through the material and connect it to their own context. We make the learning outcomes, as well as the mental wellness goals, explicit in a powerpoint presentation, so that learners can engage constructively with the goal-oriented process. We provide tutorials to empower learners to enhance understanding of the intended outcomes and have them reflect their new understandings back in creative tools, thus encouraging real-world performance. We provide a rubric to help guide them to success. Our outcomes are actionable and measurable since each has a unique, discrete product. The learning resources were all vetted for being science-based and empirical. We chose informational videos only when they were data-driven. Finally, we worked together as a team to build our resources. Therefore, learners will benefit simply because of the different knowledge, understanding, and perspectives that each of our members brought to the table.
Finally we took Flow Theory into consideration. âFlowâ is created when a learner engages their skills with a task they are invested in. Csikszentmihalyi suggests that the best way to do this is to find something that a learner enjoys doing and connect it to learning outcomes (Richards, 2021). We aimed to create flow through the use of informational presentations and material, and through self-reflection activities, to connect their context to the learning, we then present options for selecting a program of physical activity in as open-ended a way as possible.
Image 10. Providing incentives, excitement, purpose and potential âFlowâ through choice, puropseful activities and experience.
We make suggestions but also give guidelines for independently finding a program. We encourage thinking about whether the learner would like to do the program individually or as part of a partnership. We hope that, with purpose gained from reliable data and self-reflection, the learner will engage with their chosen exercise program with reduced need for determination and resilience, thus potentially achieving âflowâ and joy in the journey.
Richards, Luke. âMultimedia Design for Learning.â EDCI 337: Interactive and Multimedia Learning, June 2021, edtechuvic.ca/edci337/2021/05/29/topic-4-multimedia-design-for-learning/.
Richards, Luke. âHow We Learn, Key Learning Theoriesâ EDCI 337: Interactive and Multimedia Learning, June 2021
There’s a certain sense, when you read or hear about SAMR, that it’s prescriptive. The authors of this week’s reading (The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: a Critical Review and Suggestions for its Use) rightfully point out that its presentation as a ladder seems to imply that the higher on the ladder you are with your learning object, the better. As they say, “Puentedura (2014b) communicates the belief that technology integration along the SAMR ladder leads to better results” (Hamilton et al, 2016). One video asks, “If we have today’s technology, why teach like we did 20 years ago?”, with the following illustration:
The same video uses the base example of the task of writing a persuasive essay. Following the SAMR steps:
Substitution: Writing the essay with a pencil –> writing the essay with a word processor app.
Augmentation: Writing the essay with a pencil –> writing the essay with Google Docs, with its spell and grammar checking, along with collaborative writing features.
Modification: Writing the essay with a pencil –> writing the essay in a WordPress post with graphics and other media included, allowing comment-based conversations to occur after publishing to the world.
Redefinition: Writing the essay with a pencil –> use digital storytelling software to create and publish a multimedia alternative to an essay.
While acknowledging that multimedia theories of learning would suggest that a message delivered simultaneously using both verbal and graphical elements is more effectively delivered to a recipient than a message with only text, there is plenty in the essay writing example to question. A selection:
My child’s grade 4 class uses Chromebooks at school for much of their writing. Their facility with word processing is much better than mine was in grade 4. That said, their hand-writing is quite clearly worse off.
The same class uses Google Docs’ features, including sharing. I too am using Google Docs for the purposes of collaborating with my EDCI337 group. This is current, relevant, authentic technology. It also means they are not learning in-person collaboration to the extent that I have.
Modification + Redefinition: As described, here the task is changing. Depending on the audience, a blog post or digital story could be quite effective for persuasion. On the other hand, many avenues of life depend heavily on text-based rhetoric and show no signs of relenting (ex. much of academia, law, etc).
With the above, I’m hoping to establish that when processes change, so too do outcomes. Here’s where I find that SAMR needs to provide more clarity and guidance, and has the opportunity to re-position itself as an assessment tool rather than a prescriptive one. Hand-writing, in-person collaboration, and pure text continue to have relevance in our world. Indeed, we are constantly presented with multiple older and newer technological options for carrying out almost any task. When we consider changing a task to include different technology, we must consider what outcomes are gained/enhanced, and which ones are lost/weakened.
SAMR seems like an effective framework for analysis of changes – using it to categorize potential technology changes to a task facilitates identification of the effects of those changes on outcomes. The way that it is presented as a prescriptive tool seems to assume that newer technology is better, and this is where SAMR enthusiasts should take a step back and look at relevance. After all, returning to the graphic above, what is it really that a whiteboard offers that a chalk board does not?
I have updated a screencast I made about Quicklinks in Brightspace. The original:
Process
I compiled a list of theories and principles of multimedia learning, and then watched the original video several times, making notes about how the screencast sub-optimally addressed the theories and principes:
Dual Coding Theory
I donât always demonstrate as I describe – under-utilizing the dual channels.
Coherence Principle
The bookmarks bar, extra Chrome tabs, Windows task bar, and extra whitespace are all extraneous.
Signaling Principle
Quick link button is very small.
Redundancy Principle
Screencast is just video and narration – good.
Spatial Contiguity Principle
Not relevant â no âaddedâ text.
Temporal Contiguity Principle
I speak to concepts as I demostrate – good.
Pretraining Principle
I invoke prior knowledge of links and Moodle links but I describe without demonstrating.
I use the term âquick linkâ without explaining that it is a Brightspace-specific term.
Modality Principle
My screencast is graphics with spoken text – good.
Improvements
Signaling: Changed screencasting apps. Screencastify highlighted my mouse clicks and allowed me to add zooming. I zoomed in on the Moodle link and Brightspace Quick link buttons.
Coherence: Closed extraneous tabs; hid the bookmark bar; reduced the size of Chrome; only recorded Chrome (hiding taskbar).
Pretraining
I rewrote my script to better invoke prior knowledge. I enhanced by:
explaining âQuick linkâ explicitly as a Brightspace term rather than a generic term.
adding a segment demonstrating links and linking in Moodle.
Dual coding:
Demonstrating Moodle links and linking rather than just describing.
Adding the segment demonstrating Moodle links and linking was key to setting the context for describing Quick links in Moodle. My audience is adjusting from using Moodle (for many years) to using Brightspace. Invoking their prior knowledge and connecting it to new functionality is key for them to scaffold and construct comprehension of how to achieve the same thing in Brightspace as they did in Moodle. By demonstrating internal links in both systems and explaining their common importance, Iâm also attempting to generalize concepts and create transferrable knowledge.
Recent Comments