Applying Multimedia Principles to Online Learning
In reading through e-Learning and the Science of Instruction (2003) by Clark and Mayer, it is evident that the authors have taken former works and adapted them for designers of all levels. Many of the ideas presented are from Mayer’s (2005) book, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Clark and Mayer’s book begins with a great chapter with defines both e-learning and its methods and then moves on to the perils and pitfalls that designers should avoid. One of the important areas they discuss is the purpose of the online learning- near (procedural) or far (principle-based) transfer. I find it interesting that they note more than half of all e-learning is designed for near transfer. I think that this trend might have been true a few years ago, but it is reversing now.
Some of the pitfalls they outline are cognitive overload and not considering learning styles in the development of the online experiences. Chapter two address how people learn from e- learning. This can have an important impact on the design of an online course as the learners style will vary by their age range. Younger learners used to stimulating video games will be engaged by course designs that many older learners would find overwhelming. Clark and Mayer touch upon several multimedia principles which address cognitive overload of the learners. Mayer defines the multimedia principle as, “presenting both words (such as spoken text or printed text) and pictures (such as illustrations, photos, animation or video)” (Cambridge, 2005, p. 2). Clark and Mayer build upon this principle by adding the Modality Principle, which advocates the use of audio narration instead of onscreen text. I find this principle very interesting as I have seen course designs that both support and undermine this theory.
In looking at the online learning course I have developed through the lens of how learning occurs via the brains ability to process information according to the modility principle I can see several changes I would need to implement to increase learning of materials by my students. I use cultural video clips which include the spoken text in Spanish along with the written text at the foot of the video. I assume that the inclusion of the printed text would assist the student in comprehension of the spoken text. The problem as identified through the modality effect in that too many types of media are competing for visual processing. The video and the written text are targeting the same visual channel therefore causing split-attention which results in reducing the amount of information that can be placed in the working memory. This causes students to process the information shallow or if they are overwhelmed to tune it out completely. I have found that for some of my older students that are not technically savvy this is the case, but for others it is not.
It is possible that Clark and Mayer’s assertions may not be fully applicable to all domains or learners. Plass and Jones point out the need for more research in the testing of different learning domains and the various multimedia learning principles as many areas have not been studied. The studies on the multimedia principle and individual differences principle in second language acquisition yield findings that are consistent with those of learning scientific content (2005, p. 480). Plass and Jones contend that this pattern will not hold true for all of the multimedia principles especially the coherence, redundancy and the modality principles. One study they reference found that the addition of subtitles with a video in French actually increased learners input comprehension over those learners who received no subtitles (p. 477). This seems to oppose findings of several multimedia principles including split-attention, dual-processing and modality principles.
I find these observations very interesting as research on the use of multimedia learning principles with second language acquisition might provide results that challenge several of the currently accepted principles. As Plass and Jones indicated it might simply be a difference between the learning of scientific and languages content. In fact, many of the principles addressed by Clark and Mayer such as the Coherence and Personalization may be found to have varying impacts on different learners in respect to the age of the learners, their experience with technology or the knowledge domain being addressed. I do think that implications of the authors’ discussions should be considered when developing multimedia learning environments, but research specific to each of the multimedia learning principles should be conducted in each knowledge domain before they are unilaterally applied.
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2003) e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. San
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Plass, J. L. & Jones, L. C. (2005). Multimedia learning in second language
acquisition. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia
Learning (pp. 467-488). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
Reflective Summary 2
Chapter 3: Computer-supported collaborative learning in university and vocational education.
Learning Goals/Objectives:
Use of a collaborative Learning Network (CLN) to promote “learner as thinker”.
Role of the technology:
Software tool to support interaction and sharing of expertise.
Use of technology: instructional strategies /scaffolds:
• To focus on students instead of the teacher (student centered focus).
• To start from students prior knowledge.
• To focus on learning as a result of students’ mental knowledge (re)
construction.
• To focus on learning as a collaborative act of coming to understanding
and reaching learning goals.
• To focus on learning as a social interaction among multiple perspectives.
• To view the learner as being self-responsible for his or her learning and
the learning of his or her colleagues.
Role of the teacher:
Teacher as goal setter and initiator in students’ interaction continuance.
Provide depth and breadth of domain knowledge via coaching.
Serve as cohesive element in connecting students’ values and ideas.
Instructional strategies /scaffolds used by teacher:
• Provide a clear delineation of the group’s function
• Promote discursive participation.
• Identify the groups shared values.
• Consolidate members’ identities as part of the group.
The study by De Jong, Veldhuis, and Lutgens (2002) using Knowledge Forum was based on the premise that the process of collaborative learning should stimulate students to explain, interpret, and formulate their thoughts more clearly as well as leading students to reflect on their own learning and thinking. The study involved University Education Science undergraduates and Agricultural Vocational Education students. The authors concluded that the act of creating the open-ended learning environment to facilitate discussions does not insure that collaborative knowledge construction is really taking place (Woodruff, 2002, p. 158). A second conclusion is the involvement of the teacher is greatest during the knowledge “deepening” phase and should include working with the students’ prior knowledge and “involving student’s personal wonderments within authentic learning experiences” (p. 158). And finally they underscore the need to employ cooperative learning techniques such as jigsaw as well as weekly face-to-face meetings to generate collaborative solutions. For me the idea of the need for weekly face-to-face meetings defeats the use of online collaborations at all. What does appear crucial for knowledge construction in online collaborations is the role of instructor in the design of the learning experience and in the teaching of the course. In this study it was the instructor’s role of facilitating and provoking engagement which proved tantamount to level of and frequency of participation by learners. Also as indicated above, it was the type of and provision of scaffolding by the instructor which stimulated awareness of participants learning processes as well as providing dialogue support.
In a commentary on the study, Woodruff (2002) points out the need on the part of the instructor to “attend specifically to the cohesive community-forming factors and pay particular attention to the nature of the discursive participation” (p. 161). Community building is extremely building in VLC’s. In fact, we might even label the need to unify the members of a VLC as a crucial need. As was demonstrated by Bruckman and Jensen (2002), improper mediation or lack of leadership in community building is a big factor in failed networked learning environments (p. 31). While the instructor in De Jong, Veldhuis, and Lutgens (2002) study was there in the study’s beginning in the role of leader and mentor, it was the variation in scaffolding that was needed to assist the students in greater collaborative knowledge construction. The need for the instructors implementation of the instructional strategies or scaffolds listed above (Provide a clear delineation of the group’s function; Promote discursive participation; Identify the groups shared values; and Consolidate members’ identities as part of the group) was more evident in the study involving Vocational Agriculture students. Cuthbert, Clark, and Linn (2002) present basically the same ideas in their four design considerations for the creation of successful learning communities, but also add representation of the community members. Their study was on the VLC, WISE, which has a much narrower focus of science education. WISE uses the scaffolded knowledge integration framework which is based on the four components of: Identifying New Goals for Science Learning, Making Thinking Visible, Encouraging Autonomous Learning, and Providing Social Supports.
Smith and Ragan’s (2005) define “Instructional strategies” as patterns teachers usually follow because they have discovered that students who experience the prescribed instructional events tend to learn better than students who do not. In following this idea, making sure members feel part of the group and providing both social and technological assistance are areas that an instructor must address. So for students who are not as technologically adept as well as those who are not familiar or comfortable with online asynchronous communications, the role of the instructor must include facilitation as well as cultivation of these skills before any higher order collaborative communications can begin to take place. As the authors pointed out, Knowledge Forum can serve as a tool to promote (re)construction of knowledge, but it just a tool in the hands of the unskilled user. It is the as educators that provide the instructional strategies that tie the technology to thinking.
Question 2
A). How your chosen technology is designed to scaffold peer interactions, collaborative learning, and community building activities in a VLC.
My virtual learning community is an online Spanish course for educators. The main technology used will be the course management platform, D2L. Along with the components specific to D2L (discussion boards, quizzing function with instant feedback, audio and video imbedded within the course) I will be using several other programs such as Audacity and Marratech or Skype. While many of the course components will be asynchronous such as discussion and audio posts, synchronous chats via Skype or Marratech will allow students to engage in actual conversations with classmates as well as with native speakers such as students in Mexico. The activity would require the students to combine the grammar and vocabulary they are learning and apply it to a situation that mirrors one they might encounter using the target language. These types interactive chat activities encourage transfer, or the ability to apply the procedures or productions from one situation to a second one. Ormrod (2008) identifies several factors that affect transfer or increase the likelihood that it will occur such as meaningful learning, learning something thoroughly, principles vs. discrete facts, as well as numerous and varied examples and opportunities for practice of skills (pp.399-401). By adding in the multimedia component the student can engage in an authentic conversation with a native speaker which will allow the students to practice fluency in language usage, speaking and listening skills.
B). Discuss specifically each of these components in the context of your chosen community-building project: (a) design (or attributes) of technology, (b) instructional strategies / scaffolds, and (c) teacher’s guidance and facilitation.
a) The use of chat functions in a VLC between foreign language learners and native speakers has many benefits: (Silke von der Emde, Schneider & Kotter, 2001)
Authentic communication and content; Autonomous learning and peer teaching in a students centered classroom; Individualized learning; Importance of experimentation and play; Students as researchers- the intellectual dimension (see b)
b). One instructional strategy used would be to present the student with scenarios resembling real world learning situations requiring them to combine vocabulary, grammatical and situational language content knowledge and apply them through a variety of level appropriate activities/experiences to solve a problem. An example of this would be to present the student with a scenario of an excursion with an international friend to a local art museum. The student would create the dialogue between the two friends. The dialogue would cover an introduction, description, and explanation of the museums content to your visiting international friend. The students would need to consider language barriers such as vocabulary differences and or limitations as well as any cultural aspects that might affect communication or understanding. Using online chat the student would act out the scenario with a native speaker.
c). Throughout the initial learning of the language and vocabulary the instructor would serve in role of facilitator, model and coach by setting clear and obtainable objectives based on students level of learning, serve as resource for domain knowledge, initiate/ facilitate interactions, design interactive experiences that are interesting and relevant to students’ goals and ideas.
C.) Explain which theories motivate or underline the use of technology for your proposed project.
Communicative Language Instruction (CLI) is the most common accepted Foreign language approach used by cognitivists today as it emphasizes “authentic language use and classroom exchanges where students [are] engaged in real communication with one another” (Cal Digest, 1993). Communicative language teaching incorporates authentic or real-life situations which require communication. Students are motivated to learn due to their desire to express themselves in a manner that is both meaningful and useful. Along the same premise Kearsley and Shneiderman’s (1998) engagement theory as a model for learning in a technology-based environment: “The major premise is that students must be engaged in their course work in order for effective learning to occur” (p. 24). Engaged learning requires student activities which “involve active cognitive processes such as creating, problem-solving, reasoning, decision-making and evaluation” (p. 20). Finally, David Ausubel’s expository teaching/reception learning: that for new knowledge to become meaningful to students, it must be connected to existing knowledge (Woolfolk, 1998, p. 341). In order to build upon prior knowledge, the teacher must anchor instruction in activities that the students find not only meaningful but also authentic in the context of their own experiences. The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) acknowledged the one way to achieve this is through integrating technology into the foreign language learning (also see Smith, 2003).
References:
Bruckman, A. & Jensen, C. (2002) The mystery death of MediaMOO: Seven years of
evolution of an online community. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.),
Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp.
21-33). Cambridge University Press.
Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction and Sample Activities. (1993).
Cal Digest. Retrieved on November 20, 2005 from http://www.cal.org/
resources/digest/gallow01.html.
Cuthbert, A. J., Clark, D. B., & Linn, M. C. (2002). WISE learning communities:Design
considerations. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual
communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 215-246). Cambridge
University Press.
De Jong, F. P. C. M., Veldhuis, E. & Lutgens, G. (2002). Computer-supported
collaborative learning in university and vocational education. In T.
Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the
conversation. (pp. 111-128). Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL
Quarterly,25(2), 279-295.
Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Human learning, (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson-Prentice Hall.
von der Emde, S., Schneider, J., & Kotter, M. (2001). Technically speaking:
Transforming language learning through virtual learning envirionments. The
Modern Language Journal, 85(2). pp. 210-225.
Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The
Modern Language Journal. 87(1), 38-57.
Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design. John Wiley & Sons.
Woolfolk, Anita E. (1998). Ausubel: Expository teaching/reception learning”
Educational Psychology. (341-347). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Woodruff, E. (2002). Commentary on Computer-supported collaborative learning in
university and vocational education. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake
(Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation. (pp. 157-168).
Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
Chapter 3: Computer-supported collaborative learning in university and vocational education.
Learning Goals/Objectives:
Use of a collaborative Learning Network (CLN) to promote “learner as thinker”.
Role of the technology:
Software tool to support interaction and sharing of expertise.
Use of technology: instructional strategies /scaffolds:
• To focus on students instead of the teacher (student centered focus).
• To start from students prior knowledge.
• To focus on learning as a result of students’ mental knowledge (re)
construction.
• To focus on learning as a collaborative act of coming to understanding
and reaching learning goals.
• To focus on learning as a social interaction among multiple perspectives.
• To view the learner as being self-responsible for his or her learning and
the learning of his or her colleagues.
Role of the teacher:
Teacher as goal setter and initiator in students’ interaction continuance.
Provide depth and breadth of domain knowledge via coaching.
Serve as cohesive element in connecting students’ values and ideas.
Instructional strategies /scaffolds used by teacher:
• Provide a clear delineation of the group’s function
• Promote discursive participation.
• Identify the groups shared values.
• Consolidate members’ identities as part of the group.
The study by De Jong, Veldhuis, and Lutgens (2002) using Knowledge Forum was based on the premise that the process of collaborative learning should stimulate students to explain, interpret, and formulate their thoughts more clearly as well as leading students to reflect on their own learning and thinking. The study involved University Education Science undergraduates and Agricultural Vocational Education students. The authors concluded that the act of creating the open-ended learning environment to facilitate discussions does not insure that collaborative knowledge construction is really taking place (Woodruff, 2002, p. 158). A second conclusion is the involvement of the teacher is greatest during the knowledge “deepening” phase and should include working with the students’ prior knowledge and “involving student’s personal wonderments within authentic learning experiences” (p. 158). And finally they underscore the need to employ cooperative learning techniques such as jigsaw as well as weekly face-to-face meetings to generate collaborative solutions. For me the idea of the need for weekly face-to-face meetings defeats the use of online collaborations at all. What does appear crucial for knowledge construction in online collaborations is the role of instructor in the design of the learning experience and in the teaching of the course. In this study it was the instructor’s role of facilitating and provoking engagement which proved tantamount to level of and frequency of participation by learners. Also as indicated above, it was the type of and provision of scaffolding by the instructor which stimulated awareness of participants learning processes as well as providing dialogue support.
In a commentary on the study, Woodruff (2002) points out the need on the part of the instructor to “attend specifically to the cohesive community-forming factors and pay particular attention to the nature of the discursive participation” (p. 161). Community building is extremely building in VLC’s. In fact, we might even label the need to unify the members of a VLC as a crucial need. As was demonstrated by Bruckman and Jensen (2002), improper mediation or lack of leadership in community building is a big factor in failed networked learning environments (p. 31). While the instructor in De Jong, Veldhuis, and Lutgens (2002) study was there in the study’s beginning in the role of leader and mentor, it was the variation in scaffolding that was needed to assist the students in greater collaborative knowledge construction. The need for the instructors implementation of the instructional strategies or scaffolds listed above (Provide a clear delineation of the group’s function; Promote discursive participation; Identify the groups shared values; and Consolidate members’ identities as part of the group) was more evident in the study involving Vocational Agriculture students. Cuthbert, Clark, and Linn (2002) present basically the same ideas in their four design considerations for the creation of successful learning communities, but also add representation of the community members. Their study was on the VLC, WISE, which has a much narrower focus of science education. WISE uses the scaffolded knowledge integration framework which is based on the four components of: Identifying New Goals for Science Learning, Making Thinking Visible, Encouraging Autonomous Learning, and Providing Social Supports.
Smith and Ragan’s (2005) define “Instructional strategies” as patterns teachers usually follow because they have discovered that students who experience the prescribed instructional events tend to learn better than students who do not. In following this idea, making sure members feel part of the group and providing both social and technological assistance are areas that an instructor must address. So for students who are not as technologically adept as well as those who are not familiar or comfortable with online asynchronous communications, the role of the instructor must include facilitation as well as cultivation of these skills before any higher order collaborative communications can begin to take place. As the authors pointed out, Knowledge Forum can serve as a tool to promote (re)construction of knowledge, but it just a tool in the hands of the unskilled user. It is the as educators that provide the instructional strategies that tie the technology to thinking.
Question 2
A). How your chosen technology is designed to scaffold peer interactions, collaborative learning, and community building activities in a VLC.
My virtual learning community is an online Spanish course for educators. The main technology used will be the course management platform, D2L. Along with the components specific to D2L (discussion boards, quizzing function with instant feedback, audio and video imbedded within the course) I will be using several other programs such as Audacity and Marratech or Skype. While many of the course components will be asynchronous such as discussion and audio posts, synchronous chats via Skype or Marratech will allow students to engage in actual conversations with classmates as well as with native speakers such as students in Mexico. The activity would require the students to combine the grammar and vocabulary they are learning and apply it to a situation that mirrors one they might encounter using the target language. These types interactive chat activities encourage transfer, or the ability to apply the procedures or productions from one situation to a second one. Ormrod (2008) identifies several factors that affect transfer or increase the likelihood that it will occur such as meaningful learning, learning something thoroughly, principles vs. discrete facts, as well as numerous and varied examples and opportunities for practice of skills (pp.399-401). By adding in the multimedia component the student can engage in an authentic conversation with a native speaker which will allow the students to practice fluency in language usage, speaking and listening skills.
B). Discuss specifically each of these components in the context of your chosen community-building project: (a) design (or attributes) of technology, (b) instructional strategies / scaffolds, and (c) teacher’s guidance and facilitation.
a) The use of chat functions in a VLC between foreign language learners and native speakers has many benefits: (Silke von der Emde, Schneider & Kotter, 2001)
Authentic communication and content; Autonomous learning and peer teaching in a students centered classroom; Individualized learning; Importance of experimentation and play; Students as researchers- the intellectual dimension (see b)
b). One instructional strategy used would be to present the student with scenarios resembling real world learning situations requiring them to combine vocabulary, grammatical and situational language content knowledge and apply them through a variety of level appropriate activities/experiences to solve a problem. An example of this would be to present the student with a scenario of an excursion with an international friend to a local art museum. The student would create the dialogue between the two friends. The dialogue would cover an introduction, description, and explanation of the museums content to your visiting international friend. The students would need to consider language barriers such as vocabulary differences and or limitations as well as any cultural aspects that might affect communication or understanding. Using online chat the student would act out the scenario with a native speaker.
c). Throughout the initial learning of the language and vocabulary the instructor would serve in role of facilitator, model and coach by setting clear and obtainable objectives based on students level of learning, serve as resource for domain knowledge, initiate/ facilitate interactions, design interactive experiences that are interesting and relevant to students’ goals and ideas.
C.) Explain which theories motivate or underline the use of technology for your proposed project.
Communicative Language Instruction (CLI) is the most common accepted Foreign language approach used by cognitivists today as it emphasizes “authentic language use and classroom exchanges where students [are] engaged in real communication with one another” (Cal Digest, 1993). Communicative language teaching incorporates authentic or real-life situations which require communication. Students are motivated to learn due to their desire to express themselves in a manner that is both meaningful and useful. Along the same premise Kearsley and Shneiderman’s (1998) engagement theory as a model for learning in a technology-based environment: “The major premise is that students must be engaged in their course work in order for effective learning to occur” (p. 24). Engaged learning requires student activities which “involve active cognitive processes such as creating, problem-solving, reasoning, decision-making and evaluation” (p. 20). Finally, David Ausubel’s expository teaching/reception learning: that for new knowledge to become meaningful to students, it must be connected to existing knowledge (Woolfolk, 1998, p. 341). In order to build upon prior knowledge, the teacher must anchor instruction in activities that the students find not only meaningful but also authentic in the context of their own experiences. The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) acknowledged the one way to achieve this is through integrating technology into the foreign language learning (also see Smith, 2003).
References:
Bruckman, A. & Jensen, C. (2002) The mystery death of MediaMOO: Seven years of
evolution of an online community. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.),
Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp.
21-33). Cambridge University Press.
Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction and Sample Activities. (1993).
Cal Digest. Retrieved on November 20, 2005 from http://www.cal.org/
resources/digest/gallow01.html.
Cuthbert, A. J., Clark, D. B., & Linn, M. C. (2002). WISE learning communities:Design
considerations. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual
communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 215-246). Cambridge
University Press.
De Jong, F. P. C. M., Veldhuis, E. & Lutgens, G. (2002). Computer-supported
collaborative learning in university and vocational education. In T.
Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the
conversation. (pp. 111-128). Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL
Quarterly,25(2), 279-295.
Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Human learning, (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson-Prentice Hall.
von der Emde, S., Schneider, J., & Kotter, M. (2001). Technically speaking:
Transforming language learning through virtual learning envirionments. The
Modern Language Journal, 85(2). pp. 210-225.
Smith, B. (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The
Modern Language Journal. 87(1), 38-57.
Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design. John Wiley & Sons.
Woolfolk, Anita E. (1998). Ausubel: Expository teaching/reception learning”
Educational Psychology. (341-347). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Woodruff, E. (2002). Commentary on Computer-supported collaborative learning in
university and vocational education. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall & N. Miyake
(Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation. (pp. 157-168).
Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Educational implications of Simulations and 3D virtual worlds
Blog 3
1. How can 3-D technologies be used to create online social environment and support social interactions among community members? What are the theoretical rationales underlying the pedagogies of using 3-D environment for the benefits of learning and to achieve educational goals? (Ch. 5 - required for all)
This chapter introduces the use of a 3D online social learning environment which combines social constructivist principles with immersive gaming theory as an alternative to the traditional teaching methods and spaces. This is not a new concept as various designers and theorists have studied the combined use of engagement strategies and multiuser domains in virtual 3D environments in the form of educational games to enhance existing curriculum and materials. The results show that the active engagement created by the games supports discovery, observation, trail and error, problem solving, deep concentration, high and balanced challenges and skills, and a sense of control and satisfaction, which are all positive traits associated with learning (Dickey, 2005). As Kearsley and Shneiderman (1998) point out, “students must be engaged in their course work in order for effective learning to occur” (p. 5). Deep learning does occur when students are engrossed in the activity and there is no doubt that 3D environments captivate learners of all ages.
One of the theoretical rationales that Jones and Bronak quote is Brown, Collins and Drugid’s (1989) study on situated cognition and the culture of learning which also looks at the educational goals for learning such as the transfer of knowledge from the classroom to the real world and meaningful learning through interaction with others. As Jones and Bronack point out knowledge is social. This idea is also a major premise of Kearsley and Shneiderman’s engagement theory which is based upon an idea of creating successful collaborative teams. Knowledge emerges as students interact in meaningful ways with others. These interactions cannot be forced as Jones and Bronak emphasize the need for participatory learning in social environments or communities of practice.
In looking at the use 3-D technology as a medium for enhanced learning, M. D. Bush puts it into an indisputable perspective. First he quotes Mary Alice White stating that, “for 10,000 years humans learned from images and speech” (Bush, 1997, p.308). Next, he points out that the printed page, a relatively “modern” technology, has served as a medium of choice for only 500 years (Bush, 1997). Finally, he poses and responds to this question, “Is it any wonder that TV has the attraction that it does? Given the affinity that students have for TV, it does not seem out of line to assume that the audiovisually poor environment of the typical classroom is not the one that today’s students find stimulating” (Bush, 1997). Bush is right. Transposing the affinity that students have for TV and video games into an interactive online world of learning versus the bland environment of the typical classroom- there is no comparison.
2. How was the game “Reliving the Revolution” designed and PDA used to support collaborative problem solving activities? (Ch. 13)
Karen Schrier’s study uses a simulation game to engage learners collaborated in the reconstruction a historical event through collection and analysis of evidence, formulating and testing of hypothesis and developing conclusions. One of the major premises of Schrier addresses in her article is the need for students to learn and apply critical thinking skills to the knowledge domain of history. As she points out students are generally fed a diet of facts and historical information which they memorize, but never scrutinize the validity. One of the areas that Schrier wants to address is the availability of alternate view points in recounting historical events. This is inline with the ideas of Jonetta Cole who stresses the importance of an education in which the individual’s cultural heritage is valued. Instead of the traditional Eurocentric based education that is found in many schools and universities or its exact counterpart of an Afrocentric based education, she calls for the promotion of a Worldcentric education or an an “Everyone’s studies” education which is based upon three pillars: social awareness and responsibility; knowledge of and respect for human diversity; and participatory learning. For Cole an education system based upon these three principles “would help create an environment in which creativity, imagination, and intellectual curiosity flourish” (174). Taking a critical look at historical events from differing viewpoints has other learning benefits as we are forced to transform or modify our existing views. Transformative learning occurs when we must adjust our existing schemas or frameworks of knowledge through a period of critical reflection which may require the discarding of older viewpoints, assimilation of new ones or lead to a greater understanding of previously acquired assumptions.
Another area that Schrier stresses is a need for authenticity, mobility and discovery. Many times the knowledge learned within the classroom is often compartmentalized as facts and information that does not extend into real world situations. Meaning that cognitive skills acquired through classroom activities or tasks more often than not never transfer to the real world. Brown, Collins and Drugid’s (1989) argue the point that all knowledge domain specific or general is context bound. In other words, knowledge is situated, being in part a product of the activity, context and culture in which it is developed and used.
Schrier also looks at the issue of nonlinearity and control. Sometimes for learning to occur we have to be out of our comfort zone. In other words we have to be challenged to engage in higher order thinking skills. This idea is reminiscent of Prigogine’s new paradigm which states that as disorder increases to a critical level in open systems they will suddenly shift to a higher order. Many of our current education models are described as closed systems moving in a linear fashion with no deviation. A few of the assumptions upon which current education models are based are: the teacher is all knowing and objective; pupils learn what is taught; the curriculum is a linear course to be followed; IQ and standardized test scores have a predictive value, therefore, testing is predictive and objective; and the curriculum should be uniform for all. Our world is not closed it is filled with change and randomness. Why should we teach knowledge to students in a format that is static and not open for interpretation? We need a system based on transformative curriculum which allows for transformations and changes. Simulations like this one utilize many pedagogical objectives while engaging participants in collaborative problem solving. It is through interactions like the one created by Schrier that student learning can be transformed while they are prepared for the new challenges that a multiple perspective global community will introduce.
Bush, M. D. & Terry, R. M. (Eds.). (1997). Technology-Enhanced Language Learning.
Lincolnwood: National Textbook Company.
Cole, Johnetta. (1993). She Who Learns Must Teach. Conversations (157-183).
New York: Anchor Books.
Dickey, Michele D. (2005). Engaging By Design: How Engagement Strategies in
Popular Computer and Video Games Can Inform Instructional Design. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 53(2): 67-83.
Jones, G. J. & Bronack, S. C. (2007). Rethinking cognition, representations, and
processes in 3D online social learning environments. In D. Gibson, C. Aldrich,
& M. Prensky (Eds.), Games and simulations in online learning: Research and
development framework. (pp. 89-114). Hershey: Ideas Group.
Kearsley, G. & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement Theory: A Framework for
Technology-based Teaching and Learning. Educational Technology, 38(5): 20-23.
Schrier, K. (2007). Reliving history with “Reliving the Revolution”: Designing
augmented reality games to teach the critical thinking of history. In D.
Gibson, C. Aldrich, & M. Prensky (Eds.), Games and simulations in online
learning: Research and development framework. (pp. 250-269). Hershey: Ideas
Group.
1. How can 3-D technologies be used to create online social environment and support social interactions among community members? What are the theoretical rationales underlying the pedagogies of using 3-D environment for the benefits of learning and to achieve educational goals? (Ch. 5 - required for all)
This chapter introduces the use of a 3D online social learning environment which combines social constructivist principles with immersive gaming theory as an alternative to the traditional teaching methods and spaces. This is not a new concept as various designers and theorists have studied the combined use of engagement strategies and multiuser domains in virtual 3D environments in the form of educational games to enhance existing curriculum and materials. The results show that the active engagement created by the games supports discovery, observation, trail and error, problem solving, deep concentration, high and balanced challenges and skills, and a sense of control and satisfaction, which are all positive traits associated with learning (Dickey, 2005). As Kearsley and Shneiderman (1998) point out, “students must be engaged in their course work in order for effective learning to occur” (p. 5). Deep learning does occur when students are engrossed in the activity and there is no doubt that 3D environments captivate learners of all ages.
One of the theoretical rationales that Jones and Bronak quote is Brown, Collins and Drugid’s (1989) study on situated cognition and the culture of learning which also looks at the educational goals for learning such as the transfer of knowledge from the classroom to the real world and meaningful learning through interaction with others. As Jones and Bronack point out knowledge is social. This idea is also a major premise of Kearsley and Shneiderman’s engagement theory which is based upon an idea of creating successful collaborative teams. Knowledge emerges as students interact in meaningful ways with others. These interactions cannot be forced as Jones and Bronak emphasize the need for participatory learning in social environments or communities of practice.
In looking at the use 3-D technology as a medium for enhanced learning, M. D. Bush puts it into an indisputable perspective. First he quotes Mary Alice White stating that, “for 10,000 years humans learned from images and speech” (Bush, 1997, p.308). Next, he points out that the printed page, a relatively “modern” technology, has served as a medium of choice for only 500 years (Bush, 1997). Finally, he poses and responds to this question, “Is it any wonder that TV has the attraction that it does? Given the affinity that students have for TV, it does not seem out of line to assume that the audiovisually poor environment of the typical classroom is not the one that today’s students find stimulating” (Bush, 1997). Bush is right. Transposing the affinity that students have for TV and video games into an interactive online world of learning versus the bland environment of the typical classroom- there is no comparison.
2. How was the game “Reliving the Revolution” designed and PDA used to support collaborative problem solving activities? (Ch. 13)
Karen Schrier’s study uses a simulation game to engage learners collaborated in the reconstruction a historical event through collection and analysis of evidence, formulating and testing of hypothesis and developing conclusions. One of the major premises of Schrier addresses in her article is the need for students to learn and apply critical thinking skills to the knowledge domain of history. As she points out students are generally fed a diet of facts and historical information which they memorize, but never scrutinize the validity. One of the areas that Schrier wants to address is the availability of alternate view points in recounting historical events. This is inline with the ideas of Jonetta Cole who stresses the importance of an education in which the individual’s cultural heritage is valued. Instead of the traditional Eurocentric based education that is found in many schools and universities or its exact counterpart of an Afrocentric based education, she calls for the promotion of a Worldcentric education or an an “Everyone’s studies” education which is based upon three pillars: social awareness and responsibility; knowledge of and respect for human diversity; and participatory learning. For Cole an education system based upon these three principles “would help create an environment in which creativity, imagination, and intellectual curiosity flourish” (174). Taking a critical look at historical events from differing viewpoints has other learning benefits as we are forced to transform or modify our existing views. Transformative learning occurs when we must adjust our existing schemas or frameworks of knowledge through a period of critical reflection which may require the discarding of older viewpoints, assimilation of new ones or lead to a greater understanding of previously acquired assumptions.
Another area that Schrier stresses is a need for authenticity, mobility and discovery. Many times the knowledge learned within the classroom is often compartmentalized as facts and information that does not extend into real world situations. Meaning that cognitive skills acquired through classroom activities or tasks more often than not never transfer to the real world. Brown, Collins and Drugid’s (1989) argue the point that all knowledge domain specific or general is context bound. In other words, knowledge is situated, being in part a product of the activity, context and culture in which it is developed and used.
Schrier also looks at the issue of nonlinearity and control. Sometimes for learning to occur we have to be out of our comfort zone. In other words we have to be challenged to engage in higher order thinking skills. This idea is reminiscent of Prigogine’s new paradigm which states that as disorder increases to a critical level in open systems they will suddenly shift to a higher order. Many of our current education models are described as closed systems moving in a linear fashion with no deviation. A few of the assumptions upon which current education models are based are: the teacher is all knowing and objective; pupils learn what is taught; the curriculum is a linear course to be followed; IQ and standardized test scores have a predictive value, therefore, testing is predictive and objective; and the curriculum should be uniform for all. Our world is not closed it is filled with change and randomness. Why should we teach knowledge to students in a format that is static and not open for interpretation? We need a system based on transformative curriculum which allows for transformations and changes. Simulations like this one utilize many pedagogical objectives while engaging participants in collaborative problem solving. It is through interactions like the one created by Schrier that student learning can be transformed while they are prepared for the new challenges that a multiple perspective global community will introduce.
Bush, M. D. & Terry, R. M. (Eds.). (1997). Technology-Enhanced Language Learning.
Lincolnwood: National Textbook Company.
Cole, Johnetta. (1993). She Who Learns Must Teach. Conversations (157-183).
New York: Anchor Books.
Dickey, Michele D. (2005). Engaging By Design: How Engagement Strategies in
Popular Computer and Video Games Can Inform Instructional Design. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 53(2): 67-83.
Jones, G. J. & Bronack, S. C. (2007). Rethinking cognition, representations, and
processes in 3D online social learning environments. In D. Gibson, C. Aldrich,
& M. Prensky (Eds.), Games and simulations in online learning: Research and
development framework. (pp. 89-114). Hershey: Ideas Group.
Kearsley, G. & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement Theory: A Framework for
Technology-based Teaching and Learning. Educational Technology, 38(5): 20-23.
Schrier, K. (2007). Reliving history with “Reliving the Revolution”: Designing
augmented reality games to teach the critical thinking of history. In D.
Gibson, C. Aldrich, & M. Prensky (Eds.), Games and simulations in online
learning: Research and development framework. (pp. 250-269). Hershey: Ideas
Group.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Reflective Summary 1
Reflective Summary 1
Summary of module:
Throughout this module’s readings, discussions, and blogs there is one theme that I feel is dominant in the unit and that is the set up, design, purpose, and functionality of a virtual learning community. One of the things that I seem to keep coming back to in reflecting upon in the module is that a virtual community, just like a regular community, has to be well planned and developed. The scope of planning and development must meet both immediate as well as future needs of the community and its members. Communities that are not well planned out tend to sprawl and meander without a clear purpose or direction and are difficult to navigate. Along with a well thought out design, communities must have stable and responsive leaders, as lack of leadership can lead to the demise of the community. It is the leaders who are charged with carrying out the mission and purpose of the community as well as providing insight and direction to members. Another concept related to both leadership and design which concerns the members is support which includes help and safety features. Members are the heartbeat of the community, therefore their roles and activities must be clearly stated and the appropriate help and support provided so they can carry out their mission. By incorporating all of these same elements into a virtual community we can create the foundation for a virtual learning community where knowledge construction is both process and product.
Option 1: Building a virtual learning community
(a) Describe your conceptualization or the model of a virtual learning community you are going to design and create; including the context, the subject matter, the target audience.
Virtual Learning Community Model: The virtual learning community that I will design and create is in conjunction with a project I am currently involved in with College of Education and the National Rural Educators Association. I will be designing and building an online Spanish course for educators.
Rationale for development: Oklahoma and other states in the south and southwest have experienced a large increase in the number of English Language Learners (primarily Hispanic students), in recent years. The increase is seen in both urban and rural districts: Tulsa public schools reported 30% of student populations are ELL; Oklahoma City public schools reported that the number of Latino ELL has doubled in the past year; and up to 1 in 5 students in rural schools is ELL. In contrast to urban school districts, rural schools districts do not have the programs in place or local practitioners with expertise to assist ELL students. Compounding this is the fact that rural schools have fewer state, local, and federal financial resources per pupil to develop and maintain educational programs of any kind, including those for ELL students. Due to the fact that this trend, increased numbers of ELL students and fewer state, local, and federal financial resources for rural schools is not anticipated to change anytime in the near future, there is a desperate need to assist and educate rural teachers in order that they may assist the large Hispanic populations in their schools.
Target audience: Educators and administrators in rural areas.
Context: The VLC will function as a knowledge acquisition area, a knowledge application/practice area and a support/community building area. Educators will begin with an intensive language preparation program (ILLP) via the VLC. The goal of the ILLP is to prepare teachers for an intensive five-week language study and culture immersion experience at Universidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla (UPAEP) in Puebla, Mexico. Following their returning from Puebla educators will be engaged in the development of pedagogical skills that will utilize their language and culture understanding to address ELL students in their classroom via VLC and OU campus meetings.
Subject matter: The subject matter will be designed to focus on three specific outcomes:
• Experiences to develop an understanding of Hispanic culture.
• Experiences to develop pedagogical skills for addressing ELL.
• Experiences to develop Spanish language skills.
Each of these outcomes are interrelated are key if rural educators are expected to make a difference in the learning of all students in their classrooms.
(b) Specifically describe the strategies you will use to build or create the virtual community, addressing the contextual factors, such as the needs, interest, leadership, etc.
The online course will be a task-based learning community, which according to Riel and Polin (2004) has a shared goal which “is the communal use of diversity to achieve a deeper understanding of issues, find a solution to problems, or to complete a task in a away that is beyond the capabilities of any single person”(21).
The task is to make a difference in the learning experiences of ELL students. In order to do this, educators will need a rudimentary knowledge of the Spanish language and culture, to practice this knowledge in an immersion setting and finally the application of skills, knowledge and attitude beyond the program. In other words, the end goal is the transfer of all knowledge, skills and attitudes accumulated during the program to be demonstrated through evidence of their application in the public school setting. As pointed out in my opening reflection, the initial planning and development is key in successful virtual communities. In order to determine the success of learning in VLC’s a proper evaluation has to be developed. For this reason I have selected the accountability process, developed by Paula Berardinelli and Jim Burrows (1998) as the theoretical framework for the course. The framework encompasses all elements of a program from planning to evaluation including: purpose of the program; learner skills, knowledge and attitudes to be developed; educational program design decisions; learning that occurs- tasks and materials; anticipated changes in job performance; organizational improvement resulting from program (21).
While I have identified a theoretical framework for planning the course, there are still design challenges that are a work in progress. One of the challenges in course design will be to include ways for the authentic usage of the language and skills learned. As some of the educators may have beginning to intermediate experience in the language, another need will be designing the VLC with a contingency for those learners that do not need to start at 0 level in Spanish language acquisition. After returning from Puebla the needs of the learners within the community will shift from acquisition of the language to development of pedagogical skills for application of knowledge. This shift in the focus of the VCL will present new challenges both in content needs and application/discussion forums. To address these challenges I think Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory (1999) is applicable as it provides guidance for designing holistic sequences of course content in an effort to make the learning process more meaningful and motivational. The use of spiral sequencing will prove beneficial as learners will be allowed to master grammar and vocabulary gradually through several passes of the materials (Reigeluth, 1999, p. 432).
(c) Explain how the literature (e.g., the reading materials), the class discussions, and personal reflections help you to frame your design ideas. In other words, how did the literature and the class activities help you come up with those ideas? Make sure you have cited all the important, relevant literature.
One of the things I gained from the literature and discussions was a greater understanding of the need for an interactive leader/instructor to make the learners feel part of the group especially in an endeavor like I am proposing. This same idea was pointed out by several members in Discussion 1 including Kim Puga, who stated, “If the user is made to feel welcome and their ideas heard, then most likely they will return.” I would also add that feeling part of the learning community can also lead to greater collaboration and engagement in an online course. The importance of a supportive leader is summed up nicely by Renninger and Shumar (2002), “That feeling of support needs to be there for someone to give their time to something that is not monetarily rewarding” (74). In an online course, an instructor who is available and responds to students questions in a timely manner can change the atmosphere and experience for the students.
The need to set up forums for educators to share stories and ideas or highlight their uses of Spanish to assist students and parents is an especially important concept to include in the VLC course design for use during the immersion and final course phase. The need to set up discussion activities including properly educating learners on what to expect can have a great impact on both sharing and interactions. According to Levin and Cervantes (2006) one of the factors affecting the Life Cycle of OLC’s is the discrepancy in how network interactions differ from face-to-face exchanges (p. 272). This is important as many of the educators taking part in the course may be unfamiliar with the time factor involved in asynchronous communications. As the authors point out, people see the internet communications as moving at the “speed of light” when in reality they can move in extremely slow motion. There is a lot of confusion caused by the “time elongation” involved in online exchanges of communication (Levin & Cervantes, 2006, p. 272). I am both overwhelmed and excited by the amount of ideas gleaned from these readings and the reading in last semester’s multimedia technology course that can be applied into the design of this OLC. My task now is to begin to commit these great ideas to paper using Berardinelli and Burrows theoretical framework of accountability process to see which theories and ideas should be incorporated in each area of the course.
References
Levin, J. & Cervantes, R. (2002). Understanding the life cycle of network-based learning communities. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities:Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 269-292). Cambridge University Press.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The Elaboration Theory: Guidance for Scope and Sequence Decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (pp. 425-453). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Renninger, K. A. & Shumar, W. (2002). Community building with and for teachers at The Math Forum. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 60-95). Cambridge University Press.
Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 16-50). Cambridge University Press.
Vella, J., Berardinelli, P., & Burrow, J. (1998). How do they know they know? Evaluating adult education. San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.
Summary of module:
Throughout this module’s readings, discussions, and blogs there is one theme that I feel is dominant in the unit and that is the set up, design, purpose, and functionality of a virtual learning community. One of the things that I seem to keep coming back to in reflecting upon in the module is that a virtual community, just like a regular community, has to be well planned and developed. The scope of planning and development must meet both immediate as well as future needs of the community and its members. Communities that are not well planned out tend to sprawl and meander without a clear purpose or direction and are difficult to navigate. Along with a well thought out design, communities must have stable and responsive leaders, as lack of leadership can lead to the demise of the community. It is the leaders who are charged with carrying out the mission and purpose of the community as well as providing insight and direction to members. Another concept related to both leadership and design which concerns the members is support which includes help and safety features. Members are the heartbeat of the community, therefore their roles and activities must be clearly stated and the appropriate help and support provided so they can carry out their mission. By incorporating all of these same elements into a virtual community we can create the foundation for a virtual learning community where knowledge construction is both process and product.
Option 1: Building a virtual learning community
(a) Describe your conceptualization or the model of a virtual learning community you are going to design and create; including the context, the subject matter, the target audience.
Virtual Learning Community Model: The virtual learning community that I will design and create is in conjunction with a project I am currently involved in with College of Education and the National Rural Educators Association. I will be designing and building an online Spanish course for educators.
Rationale for development: Oklahoma and other states in the south and southwest have experienced a large increase in the number of English Language Learners (primarily Hispanic students), in recent years. The increase is seen in both urban and rural districts: Tulsa public schools reported 30% of student populations are ELL; Oklahoma City public schools reported that the number of Latino ELL has doubled in the past year; and up to 1 in 5 students in rural schools is ELL. In contrast to urban school districts, rural schools districts do not have the programs in place or local practitioners with expertise to assist ELL students. Compounding this is the fact that rural schools have fewer state, local, and federal financial resources per pupil to develop and maintain educational programs of any kind, including those for ELL students. Due to the fact that this trend, increased numbers of ELL students and fewer state, local, and federal financial resources for rural schools is not anticipated to change anytime in the near future, there is a desperate need to assist and educate rural teachers in order that they may assist the large Hispanic populations in their schools.
Target audience: Educators and administrators in rural areas.
Context: The VLC will function as a knowledge acquisition area, a knowledge application/practice area and a support/community building area. Educators will begin with an intensive language preparation program (ILLP) via the VLC. The goal of the ILLP is to prepare teachers for an intensive five-week language study and culture immersion experience at Universidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla (UPAEP) in Puebla, Mexico. Following their returning from Puebla educators will be engaged in the development of pedagogical skills that will utilize their language and culture understanding to address ELL students in their classroom via VLC and OU campus meetings.
Subject matter: The subject matter will be designed to focus on three specific outcomes:
• Experiences to develop an understanding of Hispanic culture.
• Experiences to develop pedagogical skills for addressing ELL.
• Experiences to develop Spanish language skills.
Each of these outcomes are interrelated are key if rural educators are expected to make a difference in the learning of all students in their classrooms.
(b) Specifically describe the strategies you will use to build or create the virtual community, addressing the contextual factors, such as the needs, interest, leadership, etc.
The online course will be a task-based learning community, which according to Riel and Polin (2004) has a shared goal which “is the communal use of diversity to achieve a deeper understanding of issues, find a solution to problems, or to complete a task in a away that is beyond the capabilities of any single person”(21).
The task is to make a difference in the learning experiences of ELL students. In order to do this, educators will need a rudimentary knowledge of the Spanish language and culture, to practice this knowledge in an immersion setting and finally the application of skills, knowledge and attitude beyond the program. In other words, the end goal is the transfer of all knowledge, skills and attitudes accumulated during the program to be demonstrated through evidence of their application in the public school setting. As pointed out in my opening reflection, the initial planning and development is key in successful virtual communities. In order to determine the success of learning in VLC’s a proper evaluation has to be developed. For this reason I have selected the accountability process, developed by Paula Berardinelli and Jim Burrows (1998) as the theoretical framework for the course. The framework encompasses all elements of a program from planning to evaluation including: purpose of the program; learner skills, knowledge and attitudes to be developed; educational program design decisions; learning that occurs- tasks and materials; anticipated changes in job performance; organizational improvement resulting from program (21).
While I have identified a theoretical framework for planning the course, there are still design challenges that are a work in progress. One of the challenges in course design will be to include ways for the authentic usage of the language and skills learned. As some of the educators may have beginning to intermediate experience in the language, another need will be designing the VLC with a contingency for those learners that do not need to start at 0 level in Spanish language acquisition. After returning from Puebla the needs of the learners within the community will shift from acquisition of the language to development of pedagogical skills for application of knowledge. This shift in the focus of the VCL will present new challenges both in content needs and application/discussion forums. To address these challenges I think Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory (1999) is applicable as it provides guidance for designing holistic sequences of course content in an effort to make the learning process more meaningful and motivational. The use of spiral sequencing will prove beneficial as learners will be allowed to master grammar and vocabulary gradually through several passes of the materials (Reigeluth, 1999, p. 432).
(c) Explain how the literature (e.g., the reading materials), the class discussions, and personal reflections help you to frame your design ideas. In other words, how did the literature and the class activities help you come up with those ideas? Make sure you have cited all the important, relevant literature.
One of the things I gained from the literature and discussions was a greater understanding of the need for an interactive leader/instructor to make the learners feel part of the group especially in an endeavor like I am proposing. This same idea was pointed out by several members in Discussion 1 including Kim Puga, who stated, “If the user is made to feel welcome and their ideas heard, then most likely they will return.” I would also add that feeling part of the learning community can also lead to greater collaboration and engagement in an online course. The importance of a supportive leader is summed up nicely by Renninger and Shumar (2002), “That feeling of support needs to be there for someone to give their time to something that is not monetarily rewarding” (74). In an online course, an instructor who is available and responds to students questions in a timely manner can change the atmosphere and experience for the students.
The need to set up forums for educators to share stories and ideas or highlight their uses of Spanish to assist students and parents is an especially important concept to include in the VLC course design for use during the immersion and final course phase. The need to set up discussion activities including properly educating learners on what to expect can have a great impact on both sharing and interactions. According to Levin and Cervantes (2006) one of the factors affecting the Life Cycle of OLC’s is the discrepancy in how network interactions differ from face-to-face exchanges (p. 272). This is important as many of the educators taking part in the course may be unfamiliar with the time factor involved in asynchronous communications. As the authors point out, people see the internet communications as moving at the “speed of light” when in reality they can move in extremely slow motion. There is a lot of confusion caused by the “time elongation” involved in online exchanges of communication (Levin & Cervantes, 2006, p. 272). I am both overwhelmed and excited by the amount of ideas gleaned from these readings and the reading in last semester’s multimedia technology course that can be applied into the design of this OLC. My task now is to begin to commit these great ideas to paper using Berardinelli and Burrows theoretical framework of accountability process to see which theories and ideas should be incorporated in each area of the course.
References
Levin, J. & Cervantes, R. (2002). Understanding the life cycle of network-based learning communities. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities:Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 269-292). Cambridge University Press.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The Elaboration Theory: Guidance for Scope and Sequence Decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (pp. 425-453). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Renninger, K. A. & Shumar, W. (2002). Community building with and for teachers at The Math Forum. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 60-95). Cambridge University Press.
Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 16-50). Cambridge University Press.
Vella, J., Berardinelli, P., & Burrow, J. (1998). How do they know they know? Evaluating adult education. San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Case Study 1
For case study 1 part “a” I chose Coloquio Cervantes. This web site http://www.ou.edu/cervantes, and listserv CERVANTES-L@LISTS.OU.EDU, is the unique creation of Spanish Golden Age experts Dr Robert Lauer, University of Oklahoma and Kurt Reichenberger, owner of Edition Reichenberger a publishing house in Kassel Germany. The mission statement of Coloquio Cervantes appears on the website in Spanish, “Promover el intercambio de ideas sobre el Quijote y otras obras de Cervantes a nivel internacional para estudiar su sentido y extraer su significado”. The mission of the endeavor was to promote the interchange of ideas on an international level and provide the backdrop for enlightened discussions between experts and novices alike, over Quijote (Don Quixote) and other works by Miguel Cervantes.
The listserv was started on March 29, 2005 with the web site appearing on April 11, 2005. Using the Coloquio Cervantes listserv Kurt Reichenberger and Dr. Lauer sent out a discussion theme each week to inspire a dialogue between colleagues and graduate students interested in the symposium style discussion. There are two options for taking part in the dialogue, enter a chat room for a virtual chat or to respond back to the original message. Members have access to all chat transcripts and dialogues between members as retired themes with all discussions are archived and accessible on the website. Sample discussion themes included "Cervantes, is he a feminist?", "Catalina de Palacios, is she a co-authoress of the Quixote of 1605?". Each weekly theme took on a life as its own as researchers and students from all over the world debate positions by offering evidence of their positions as well as debate current theories and offer new ones.
Using Riel and Polin’s 2004 article as a base I would place this site into two categories. It is both a practice based learning community and a knowledge-based learning community. Riel and Polin (2004) describe a practice-based learning community as, “larger groups with shared goals that offer their members richly contextualized and supported arenas for learning” (20). On the other hand, “knowledge-based learning communities often share many of the same features of a community of practice but focus on the deliberate and formal production of external knowledge about the practice” (Riel & Polin, 2004, p. 21). The website itself provides the members with a variety of interactions and a wealth of information including archives of past discussions, original arte work dedicated to Cervantes Works, electronic directory of members, bibliography of works discussed and cited in discussions, monthly critical discussion point, Published articles, posting of information on and the results of International conferences on the works of Quijote. Both the listserv and the website provided an outlet for members to post news of their publications as well as alert the community on new studies and publications. The listserve provided the members with and ongoing discussion and banter concerning issues and topics over the Spanish Golden Age and Quijote.
I have been a member of Coloquio Cervantes since it started and I enjoy the discussions. Although they are not as frequent and the emails do not fly back and forth as furiously as they once did. I have taken part in the community as an observer, as well as becoming involved in the ongoing discussions. I have also published an article on the site “Reciclando a Zoraida y el Capitán Cautivo”. One of the things I enjoyed most was the posturing to defend positions taken in the debates and discussions. Members from Spain were very formal in all their postings and replies. They were very cordial and included long introductions and closings. If they were in disagreement, they were very eloquent in addressing it. Members from other geographical areas were not so gentle in their opinions of others essay and thoughts. In fact, if they had been involved in a round table discussion I felt several times they would have come to blows! In looking at the community, I feel it fills a need for those whose field of expertise is in the Spanish Golden Age or are just “aficionados” of Quijote, or Cervantes. The community offers members a way to meet and exchange ideas, promote new publications of their field and stay connected between conferences.
The structure of the site itself is good and allows members to come and go at will. The discussions via the listserv are very cumbersome and are problematic when a comment sparks a large protesting debate. The design of community will limit its growth as all messages are sent through a mediated listserv which requires support and monitoring. In fact, Coloquio Cervantes is currently on the same course that MediaMOO experienced with leadership issues as Mr. Reichenberger is not well and Dr. Lauer is extremely busy. So far other members of the Reichenberger assist in keeping the discussion lines open, but I am not sure how long that will last.
For Case Study 1 Part “b” I chose a virtual community that I have used many times. TrackStar http://trackstar.4teachers.org/trackstar/index.jsp, is a repository of online lessons and activities. Teachers can go to locate online activities or interactive lessons over themes and topics by grade levels or they can build their own. To build a lesson all that a teacher needs to do is collect Web sites, enter them into TrackStar, add annotations for their students, and an interactive, online lesson called a Track is created. TrackStar is a searchable database/repository where thousands of these information Tracks made by other educators are stored. The data base can be searched by subject, grade, or theme and standards for interactive and engaging activities. There is even a Track made for each day of the year.
I found TrackStar easy to use and navigate. I have used the system to build tracks in the past. Step by step instructions are provided and support is there if you have a problem. The TrackStar project was started in 2000 by the University of Kansas. It continues to be maintained there by 4teachers.org. The mission of the repository is to encourage educators to incorporate technology in their daily lesson plans. According to Riel and Polin (2004) TrackStar would be in the category of a practice based learning community. The focus of TrackStar is to assist teachers with building or locating activities that can be incorporated into daily lesson plans and units that require students to use technology as a means to receive and find information over a them or topic.
There are several ways teachers can use Trackstar as a learning tool. The first one is to locate a Track that meets their objectives and have the student work individually or in small group to complete the Track. Each Track is interactive requiring the students to link out to resources and then return to complete learning activities. Another possibility is to use the track as a data base for information that can be presented to students. A third possibility is for instructors to design their own unique Track by combining their own content with that found on the web and in other tracks. All Tracks contain a teacher page with information about the track concerning the specific audience, instructional goals, objectives, rationale, description of unit, needed materials, and students involvement- motivation, engagement, processing, etc. Included in this page is contact information if an instructor would like to ask any other questions or give a suggestion. The site is maintained by university staff and is part of ALTEC, the Advanced Learning Technologies project at the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. These are actually the only two communication options available through TrackStar.
Some of the design features at the site are the ease of navigation, multiple ways to search the date base such as by topic, theme, author, subject, grade level, standard, and multidisciplinary. The site started in 2000 to promote the inclusion of technology use in the classroom and has gained popularity due to its ease of use. One of the best uses of the site is in setting up small groups of learners and allowing them to navigate through a Track. Each Track is designed with the same template so students can work through them. The design of each Track is structured to guide students through the activities and then to an assessment. The use of technology by students in working through the Tracks is engaging for all types of learners. The content is fully interactive containing videos, photos, links to outside sources, interactive worksheets, assessments and activities.
In looking at the two sites Coloquio Cervantes and TrackStar each one strives to reach a different audience as well as serve a different purpose. While Coloquio Cervantes is provides a community to engage literature experts, university faculty, graduate students and fans of Spanish Golden Age works, with a focus on Quijote and Cervantes, TrackStar aims to engage elementary and secondary students in technology based learning. Each one also provides it members with different community interactions. Coloquio Cervantes has both online synchronous and asynchronous communication and information data bases. TrackStar provides an online repository of technology based learning activities and lesson plans.
Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Designing for virtual communities in he service of learning. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 16-50). Cambridge University Press.
The listserv was started on March 29, 2005 with the web site appearing on April 11, 2005. Using the Coloquio Cervantes listserv Kurt Reichenberger and Dr. Lauer sent out a discussion theme each week to inspire a dialogue between colleagues and graduate students interested in the symposium style discussion. There are two options for taking part in the dialogue, enter a chat room for a virtual chat or to respond back to the original message. Members have access to all chat transcripts and dialogues between members as retired themes with all discussions are archived and accessible on the website. Sample discussion themes included "Cervantes, is he a feminist?", "Catalina de Palacios, is she a co-authoress of the Quixote of 1605?". Each weekly theme took on a life as its own as researchers and students from all over the world debate positions by offering evidence of their positions as well as debate current theories and offer new ones.
Using Riel and Polin’s 2004 article as a base I would place this site into two categories. It is both a practice based learning community and a knowledge-based learning community. Riel and Polin (2004) describe a practice-based learning community as, “larger groups with shared goals that offer their members richly contextualized and supported arenas for learning” (20). On the other hand, “knowledge-based learning communities often share many of the same features of a community of practice but focus on the deliberate and formal production of external knowledge about the practice” (Riel & Polin, 2004, p. 21). The website itself provides the members with a variety of interactions and a wealth of information including archives of past discussions, original arte work dedicated to Cervantes Works, electronic directory of members, bibliography of works discussed and cited in discussions, monthly critical discussion point, Published articles, posting of information on and the results of International conferences on the works of Quijote. Both the listserv and the website provided an outlet for members to post news of their publications as well as alert the community on new studies and publications. The listserve provided the members with and ongoing discussion and banter concerning issues and topics over the Spanish Golden Age and Quijote.
I have been a member of Coloquio Cervantes since it started and I enjoy the discussions. Although they are not as frequent and the emails do not fly back and forth as furiously as they once did. I have taken part in the community as an observer, as well as becoming involved in the ongoing discussions. I have also published an article on the site “Reciclando a Zoraida y el Capitán Cautivo”. One of the things I enjoyed most was the posturing to defend positions taken in the debates and discussions. Members from Spain were very formal in all their postings and replies. They were very cordial and included long introductions and closings. If they were in disagreement, they were very eloquent in addressing it. Members from other geographical areas were not so gentle in their opinions of others essay and thoughts. In fact, if they had been involved in a round table discussion I felt several times they would have come to blows! In looking at the community, I feel it fills a need for those whose field of expertise is in the Spanish Golden Age or are just “aficionados” of Quijote, or Cervantes. The community offers members a way to meet and exchange ideas, promote new publications of their field and stay connected between conferences.
The structure of the site itself is good and allows members to come and go at will. The discussions via the listserv are very cumbersome and are problematic when a comment sparks a large protesting debate. The design of community will limit its growth as all messages are sent through a mediated listserv which requires support and monitoring. In fact, Coloquio Cervantes is currently on the same course that MediaMOO experienced with leadership issues as Mr. Reichenberger is not well and Dr. Lauer is extremely busy. So far other members of the Reichenberger assist in keeping the discussion lines open, but I am not sure how long that will last.
For Case Study 1 Part “b” I chose a virtual community that I have used many times. TrackStar http://trackstar.4teachers.org/trackstar/index.jsp, is a repository of online lessons and activities. Teachers can go to locate online activities or interactive lessons over themes and topics by grade levels or they can build their own. To build a lesson all that a teacher needs to do is collect Web sites, enter them into TrackStar, add annotations for their students, and an interactive, online lesson called a Track is created. TrackStar is a searchable database/repository where thousands of these information Tracks made by other educators are stored. The data base can be searched by subject, grade, or theme and standards for interactive and engaging activities. There is even a Track made for each day of the year.
I found TrackStar easy to use and navigate. I have used the system to build tracks in the past. Step by step instructions are provided and support is there if you have a problem. The TrackStar project was started in 2000 by the University of Kansas. It continues to be maintained there by 4teachers.org. The mission of the repository is to encourage educators to incorporate technology in their daily lesson plans. According to Riel and Polin (2004) TrackStar would be in the category of a practice based learning community. The focus of TrackStar is to assist teachers with building or locating activities that can be incorporated into daily lesson plans and units that require students to use technology as a means to receive and find information over a them or topic.
There are several ways teachers can use Trackstar as a learning tool. The first one is to locate a Track that meets their objectives and have the student work individually or in small group to complete the Track. Each Track is interactive requiring the students to link out to resources and then return to complete learning activities. Another possibility is to use the track as a data base for information that can be presented to students. A third possibility is for instructors to design their own unique Track by combining their own content with that found on the web and in other tracks. All Tracks contain a teacher page with information about the track concerning the specific audience, instructional goals, objectives, rationale, description of unit, needed materials, and students involvement- motivation, engagement, processing, etc. Included in this page is contact information if an instructor would like to ask any other questions or give a suggestion. The site is maintained by university staff and is part of ALTEC, the Advanced Learning Technologies project at the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. These are actually the only two communication options available through TrackStar.
Some of the design features at the site are the ease of navigation, multiple ways to search the date base such as by topic, theme, author, subject, grade level, standard, and multidisciplinary. The site started in 2000 to promote the inclusion of technology use in the classroom and has gained popularity due to its ease of use. One of the best uses of the site is in setting up small groups of learners and allowing them to navigate through a Track. Each Track is designed with the same template so students can work through them. The design of each Track is structured to guide students through the activities and then to an assessment. The use of technology by students in working through the Tracks is engaging for all types of learners. The content is fully interactive containing videos, photos, links to outside sources, interactive worksheets, assessments and activities.
In looking at the two sites Coloquio Cervantes and TrackStar each one strives to reach a different audience as well as serve a different purpose. While Coloquio Cervantes is provides a community to engage literature experts, university faculty, graduate students and fans of Spanish Golden Age works, with a focus on Quijote and Cervantes, TrackStar aims to engage elementary and secondary students in technology based learning. Each one also provides it members with different community interactions. Coloquio Cervantes has both online synchronous and asynchronous communication and information data bases. TrackStar provides an online repository of technology based learning activities and lesson plans.
Riel, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Designing for virtual communities in he service of learning. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 16-50). Cambridge University Press.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Building Virtual communities
Blog 2:
Virtual Communities Offering Self-Help: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
Burrows and Nettleton (2002) raise several relevant points concerning virtual communities offering online self-help in their article Reflexive modernization and the emergence of wired self-help. The authors use the theoretical lens of reflective modernization in their analysis of the phenomenon identified as wired self-help. Burrows and Nettleton define the theory of reflective modernization as an attempt to explain the nature and rate of social change in the contemporary period, which is not only moving at a more rapid pace than in any other historical time frame, but is also much broader in its scope and depth. The authors identify changes in economic life, family life, technology, culture along with the new millennium as causing a period of uncertainty, unpredictability and instability for adults worldwide (pp. 252-254). Based on these characterizations, our world has become one in which twentieth century social traditions are replaced with uncertain risks, more choices and therefore more decisions that have to be negotiated by each individual. During this era of detraditionalization expert knowledge and the experts are being called into question and even replaced by lay knowledge and personal experience (254). The results of this are a loss of faith in our traditional authority figures, such as doctors, teachers, fathers, and scientists which has caused a shift from reliance solely on the standard social institutions for advice toward alternative and individual authority figures.
In analyzing the emergence of self help groups, the growth and spread of which has been greatly accelerated by the Internet, the authors highlight several issues for future discussion (265). First, the format of the self-help virtual communities is derived from ideologies of individualism and collectivism, with individualism being the greater factor, meaning that it is geared more for personal help in lieu of a collective help form. In such a setting, an individual seeks out knowledge or support or provides a response geared toward another participants question or query. The information is not geared toward community issues or concerns, but rather individualistic queries for personal concerns and problems. Secondly, as indicated earlier, there is a reluctance to accept advice from experts or authority figures at face value. Nontraditional and multiple sources of information are sought out, which may equate to better informed individuals, but the discrepancy in the multiple sources increases difficulty and anxiety in making decisions. Finally, the authors question what the significance of the shift from PC Internet, which requires proactive participation, to digital TV, a more passive format, on virtual self-help communities fearing that they may become a form of entertainment or oprahfication (266).
In analyzing self help virtual communities, Burrows and Nettleton use two examples both of which are relegated to the sphere of public health policy, the debate over MMR childhood vaccinations and the selling and consumption of genetically modified foods. The threaded posts highlighted from discussion boards are representative of a quest for knowledge by individuals who want to make an informed decision. In looking at the responses by individuals given to the father who questions the need for the shot, fear of possible side effects and alternative ways to administer the shot, it appears that what he receives are nothing more than non-documented opinions having nothing to do with the original questions. The virtual debate over genetically modified foods appeared to contain both facts and opinions. The possibilities for learning and change using self-help virtual communities is indeed endless, but we must remember that many users become even more confused by the information they receive.
While I believe that the Internet is an excellent source to find out information and multiple perspectives/takes on issues, the threaded discussion on “to immunize one’s child” or not is an excellent indication of why one must be a discerning consumer of information found online. Fact, fiction, and personal nonbiased opinions are not always easy to distinguish from one another. Remember Orson Well’s radio broadcast of War of the Worlds in October 30, 1938, who would have thought such numbers of adults would have panicked over a work of fiction read aloud on the radio. Maybe they missed the disclaimers at the beginning of the broadcast or ignored them, perhaps they listened to the opinion of a panicked neighbor, or they were simply not educated in the art of being objective, whatever the case, whenever individuals blindly follow bad advice, bad decisions or similar scenarios could result.
On the other hand, the discussion posts from last week’s class discussion are indicative of the positive results that can be associated with self-help in a virtual community. Questions and problems were presented and were responded to with valid responses and solutions most of which were not based on documented studies and research, but from personal experiences and observations. I guess we can say there is both good and bad and if we think about there is even ugly too. The author’s fears of an oprahification of virtual self-help communities is not only a future concern, but a current one as well. We can access information and entertainment of every conceivable classification via the internet and virtual communities, some of it good, some not so good and some completely unmentionable!
In short, virtual communities and the Internet have a great impact on individuals seeking information and knowledge construction, but the old practice of consumer beware is just as applicable in the virtual community as it is in the real world setting. As more and more information consumers seek answers via the World Wide Web educational support for consumer awareness need to be in place. One easy way to implement this is in classrooms of public schools. Each year more schools systems and classrooms are connecting to the Web. Most students are given the basic Internet safety concerns of caution in disclosing identity or other personal information as well as who they interact with in chat areas. As long as we are cautioning them on the need to discern the outgoing information, why not include the same cautions on incoming information as well?
Life Cycles of Online Learning Communities
In addition to Internet access in classrooms across the United Sates and world, is the introduction of students to collaborative learning experiences in virtual learning communities. According to Levin and Cervantes (2002) these network-based learning communities go through a similar process of development or life cycle (269). The progression of phases or stages in a network-based learning community; formation, growth, maturation, decline and termination, is the focus of their article Understanding the life cycle of network-based learning communities. While the case study of this article is a bit dated (1992-1993), the information Cervantes gathered can be applied to many virtual learning communities.
Along with the description of the life cycle stages were some excellent bits of food for thought for those interested in developing online learning courses or communities. One of the areas emphasized is the discrepancy in how network interactions differ from face-to-face exchanges. This is a key concept in an online course, because many students have not grasped the time factor involved in asynchronous communications. This can lead to frustration when students wait until the last moment to post questions and end up missing deadlines due to a response that arrives several hours later. There is a lot of confusion caused by the “time elongation” involved in online exchanges of communication (Levin & Cervantes, 2006, p. 272). As the authors point out, people see the internet communications as moving at the “speed of light” when in reality they can move in extremely slow motion. In an online discussions, a conversation that might play out in a manner of minutes in a face-to-face class, might take hours, days or even a week as participants enter the discussion posts at all hours of the day. This is certainly the case when clarification of what is being asked must be determined before another participant can respond to the actual question. In the Zero–g Project the availability of experts to assist with the students as well as the entering and exiting of participants form the project caused the project to appear to roll along in lurches.
Along with the time delay in communication exchanges, technical ability, type of computer equipment needed to participate and integration of the Zero-g Project into current school curriculum were other areas of concern. In thinking about an online course, technical skills needed and the proper equipment are important if all students are to participate in the course and its activities. In my online courses both of these are important factors. The college of Arts and Sciences has determined the basic connection and minimum computer requirements that students must have to take online courses here at OU. Once the students log into the course I walk them through these requirements by linking them to A & S web pages. As my specific courses require the students to view videos on themes, grammar and culture along with listening to MP3 files of vocabulary pronunciation, I have several pages in the course content area that detail the type of programs or software required in the course and provide links to free downloads. The students are also required to record themselves speaking in the target language and post these recordings as WAV or MP3 files. Once again, links are provided to a free program, Audacity, which allows students to record and save files as WAV or MP3. Along with the links, detailed step-by-step instructions have to be included as the learners are at both ends of the spectrum when it comes to technology savvy and ability.
No matter how detailed the instructions are or how fool-proof you think the applications are, there is undoubtedly going to be a learner in need of assistance or technical trouble shooting. This is a big problem in online language courses especially with adding accented letter and diacritical marks to documents and inside the course management quizzing system. Many times the method or codes a student used to add accents in compositions written in Word or similar word processing programs will not function within the course management system. This type of trouble shooting has to be handled in advance of the course going live as very few students will have the luxury of bringing their computer by your office for you to work the bugs out.
Levin and Cervantes describe networked learning as a loosely, coupled communities. This is a great image for online learning communities as there is a lot of activity going on simultaneously and independently in a multitude of locations at various times. While it may not appear possible, learning is going on, just not in the lock-stepped time frames of traditional learning environments. In their closing discussion, the authors again emphasize the need to understand the life cycle of network based learning activities by participants and leaders or instructors. Since the interactions can stretch out over long periods of time the role of the mediator is crucial to keep the networked learning environment and participants progressing through its life cycle. They credit improper mediation or lack of leadership as a big factor in failed networked learning environments. I think we can all see the repercussions of lack of leadership when we reflect on The mystery death of MediaMOO: Seven years of evolution of an online community (Bruckman and Jensen, 2002).
Managing Learning in Virtual Settings: The Role of Context
Context and Learning: A Philosophical Framework
While this article examines both context and content, two important concepts in online course design and development, context is the major focus. Figueiredo and Alfonso (2006) begin by looking at antiquated methods for delivery of content which they liken to mechanist fluid. This fluid content is “transferred from the texts books and the minds of the teachers into the empty minds of the learners” (2). This analogy of pouring knowledge into the minds of learners echoes of Paulo Freire’s “Banking” concept of education in which information is deposited into the learner for storage purposes only. According to Figueiredo and Alfonso’s model, the learner is not a vessel at the periphery of the model, but is now the very center of the model surrounded by content and context.
The authors emphasize that the perception of context in learning is tied to the philosophical paradigm adopted by the instructor or course designer. For this reason three key philosophical questions are addressed including the ontological, epistemological and the methodological. The focus of each question differs. The ontological perspective addresses “What can be known?” The response to this question is colored by our perceptions and experiences, “what can be known is what is constructed by us from our perceptions of reality” (8). To emphasize this concept, the authors quote the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus: “You cannot step twice into the same river” (7). In reflecting on this quote, I would add that no two students step into the same course as their experiences and knowledge make each learner’s learning experience unique.
The epistemological perspective asks the question “What is knowledge or what knowledge can we get?” The response posited to this question is “Knowledge is what we can learn by exploring the causes of the problems we face; the only knowledge we can get is that resulting from our inquiries into the efficient causes of the problems we face” (8). In stark contrast to the epistemological perspective is the methodological which questions “How can we build that knowledge?” The response resembles more of a statement than an answer: “we need knowledge not just to understand but also to build the reality we experience” (9).
In looking at all three of these perspectives there is a definite undercurrent telling us that knowledge is not static, but constantly flowing and changing course. For this reason the authors tell us that, “context is not stable but permanently changing” (12). These changes happen as a result of our experiences and perceptions in learning situations. The implications, in terms of course design are simple. Courses must be designed with room to grow, expand and change. As the authors put it we need to understand design as a process of translation. It is going to differ a little in meaning to everyone who engages in it.
Virtual Settings: E-Learning as Creating Context
Duchastel and Molz are on a mission to shift the focus of content, from a traditional centralized model of delivering information to the learner, to a more modern model of the learner’s access of information. “The point of the shift is to reengage the learner in more personal learning that can be more interesting and meaningful” (2006, 24). The authors identify four quadrants which interact together making up the learning environment. These contexts of learning perspectives include the experiential context, information context, institution context and community context.
The experiential context, or the realm of subjective experience, is the starting point of learning. This is important because the learner’s feelings of being overwhelmed, bored or stimulated with learning are a direct result of his/her prior knowledge and skills. The next context is information which the authors tell us “will always appear contextualized, that is, framed by a certain situation” (28). The institutional context is related to the socioeconomic system and relationships of the learning and where it takes place. The community context deals with the type of group, size, location, cross-cultural and multilingual factors.
From an instructional design stand point each realm encompasses its own challenges. The first realm, experiential, must be designed to allow learners to discover and reflect on personalized learning opportunities. The second realm, information, must contain all the tools and information the learner will need including communication and access. The third realm, institution, is in the cohesiveness between the course’s instructional approach, organizational development and support. The final realm, community, addresses the need for options in the learner’s ability to participate and engage in a variety of real life or authentic learning communities which transcend the traditional classroom. The authors conclusions that a design paradigm shift to a learner centered model is necessary for optimal learning to occur in e-learning or virtual courses incorporating each of the four quadrants of learning contexts is valid. Most educators agree that a paradigm shift from instructor centered to learner centered model in all educational endeavors is in order. It may be a hard task to remold all existing courses and instructors, but for those educators who embrace these new visionary concepts there is a whole new virtual frontier in which they can lead the way by course design and instruction, even if it is one course at a time.
Reflections and conclusions:
There are differences between E-learning and traditional course formats, but too many educators try to duplicate an existing face-to-face course into an e-learning environment. What they discover is that one size does not fit all and one model is not identical to another. Just about the time we entered the new millennium we entered into a new and unfamiliar territory, called cyber space and virtual learning. While a lot of our existing knowledge base serves as a starting point for course design in virtual settings, we as educators have now become the students in a quest to build the best learning programs. In the old school we cooked and dished up the content to hungry learners. Now the recipes are changing and we have to learn how to cook all over again and are unable top rely on all the old tried and true methods (or what we took for granted as tried and true!). We adapted from cooking over wood fires, to gas and electric ranges, and finally onto microwaves. We are both adaptive and enterprising. We made it through all those changes and we will continue to meet the challenges of the future. Knowledge is never static, it is ever changing and evolving, so why would we ever consider that our course designs and methodologies could remain the same?
Burrows, R. & Nettleton, S. (2002). Reflexive modernization and the emergence of wired self-help. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 249-268). Cambridge University Press.
Bruckman, A. & Jensen, C. (2002) The mystery death of MediaMOO: Seven years of evolution of an online community. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 21-33). Cambridge
University Press.
de Figueiredo, A. D. & Afonso, A. P. (2006). Context and learning: A philosophical framework. In A. D. de Figueiredo & A. P. Afonso (Eds.), Managing learning in virtual settings: The role of context (pp. 1-22) London: Information Science Publishing.
Duchastel, P. & Molz, M. (2006). Virtual settings: E- learning as creating context. In A. D. de Figueiredo & A. P. Afonso (Eds.), Managing learning in virtual vettings: The role of context (pp. 24-39) London: Information Science Publishing.
Levin, J. & Cervantes, R. (2002). Understanding the life cycle of network-based learning communities. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 269-292). Cambridge University Press.
Virtual Communities Offering Self-Help: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
Burrows and Nettleton (2002) raise several relevant points concerning virtual communities offering online self-help in their article Reflexive modernization and the emergence of wired self-help. The authors use the theoretical lens of reflective modernization in their analysis of the phenomenon identified as wired self-help. Burrows and Nettleton define the theory of reflective modernization as an attempt to explain the nature and rate of social change in the contemporary period, which is not only moving at a more rapid pace than in any other historical time frame, but is also much broader in its scope and depth. The authors identify changes in economic life, family life, technology, culture along with the new millennium as causing a period of uncertainty, unpredictability and instability for adults worldwide (pp. 252-254). Based on these characterizations, our world has become one in which twentieth century social traditions are replaced with uncertain risks, more choices and therefore more decisions that have to be negotiated by each individual. During this era of detraditionalization expert knowledge and the experts are being called into question and even replaced by lay knowledge and personal experience (254). The results of this are a loss of faith in our traditional authority figures, such as doctors, teachers, fathers, and scientists which has caused a shift from reliance solely on the standard social institutions for advice toward alternative and individual authority figures.
In analyzing the emergence of self help groups, the growth and spread of which has been greatly accelerated by the Internet, the authors highlight several issues for future discussion (265). First, the format of the self-help virtual communities is derived from ideologies of individualism and collectivism, with individualism being the greater factor, meaning that it is geared more for personal help in lieu of a collective help form. In such a setting, an individual seeks out knowledge or support or provides a response geared toward another participants question or query. The information is not geared toward community issues or concerns, but rather individualistic queries for personal concerns and problems. Secondly, as indicated earlier, there is a reluctance to accept advice from experts or authority figures at face value. Nontraditional and multiple sources of information are sought out, which may equate to better informed individuals, but the discrepancy in the multiple sources increases difficulty and anxiety in making decisions. Finally, the authors question what the significance of the shift from PC Internet, which requires proactive participation, to digital TV, a more passive format, on virtual self-help communities fearing that they may become a form of entertainment or oprahfication (266).
In analyzing self help virtual communities, Burrows and Nettleton use two examples both of which are relegated to the sphere of public health policy, the debate over MMR childhood vaccinations and the selling and consumption of genetically modified foods. The threaded posts highlighted from discussion boards are representative of a quest for knowledge by individuals who want to make an informed decision. In looking at the responses by individuals given to the father who questions the need for the shot, fear of possible side effects and alternative ways to administer the shot, it appears that what he receives are nothing more than non-documented opinions having nothing to do with the original questions. The virtual debate over genetically modified foods appeared to contain both facts and opinions. The possibilities for learning and change using self-help virtual communities is indeed endless, but we must remember that many users become even more confused by the information they receive.
While I believe that the Internet is an excellent source to find out information and multiple perspectives/takes on issues, the threaded discussion on “to immunize one’s child” or not is an excellent indication of why one must be a discerning consumer of information found online. Fact, fiction, and personal nonbiased opinions are not always easy to distinguish from one another. Remember Orson Well’s radio broadcast of War of the Worlds in October 30, 1938, who would have thought such numbers of adults would have panicked over a work of fiction read aloud on the radio. Maybe they missed the disclaimers at the beginning of the broadcast or ignored them, perhaps they listened to the opinion of a panicked neighbor, or they were simply not educated in the art of being objective, whatever the case, whenever individuals blindly follow bad advice, bad decisions or similar scenarios could result.
On the other hand, the discussion posts from last week’s class discussion are indicative of the positive results that can be associated with self-help in a virtual community. Questions and problems were presented and were responded to with valid responses and solutions most of which were not based on documented studies and research, but from personal experiences and observations. I guess we can say there is both good and bad and if we think about there is even ugly too. The author’s fears of an oprahification of virtual self-help communities is not only a future concern, but a current one as well. We can access information and entertainment of every conceivable classification via the internet and virtual communities, some of it good, some not so good and some completely unmentionable!
In short, virtual communities and the Internet have a great impact on individuals seeking information and knowledge construction, but the old practice of consumer beware is just as applicable in the virtual community as it is in the real world setting. As more and more information consumers seek answers via the World Wide Web educational support for consumer awareness need to be in place. One easy way to implement this is in classrooms of public schools. Each year more schools systems and classrooms are connecting to the Web. Most students are given the basic Internet safety concerns of caution in disclosing identity or other personal information as well as who they interact with in chat areas. As long as we are cautioning them on the need to discern the outgoing information, why not include the same cautions on incoming information as well?
Life Cycles of Online Learning Communities
In addition to Internet access in classrooms across the United Sates and world, is the introduction of students to collaborative learning experiences in virtual learning communities. According to Levin and Cervantes (2002) these network-based learning communities go through a similar process of development or life cycle (269). The progression of phases or stages in a network-based learning community; formation, growth, maturation, decline and termination, is the focus of their article Understanding the life cycle of network-based learning communities. While the case study of this article is a bit dated (1992-1993), the information Cervantes gathered can be applied to many virtual learning communities.
Along with the description of the life cycle stages were some excellent bits of food for thought for those interested in developing online learning courses or communities. One of the areas emphasized is the discrepancy in how network interactions differ from face-to-face exchanges. This is a key concept in an online course, because many students have not grasped the time factor involved in asynchronous communications. This can lead to frustration when students wait until the last moment to post questions and end up missing deadlines due to a response that arrives several hours later. There is a lot of confusion caused by the “time elongation” involved in online exchanges of communication (Levin & Cervantes, 2006, p. 272). As the authors point out, people see the internet communications as moving at the “speed of light” when in reality they can move in extremely slow motion. In an online discussions, a conversation that might play out in a manner of minutes in a face-to-face class, might take hours, days or even a week as participants enter the discussion posts at all hours of the day. This is certainly the case when clarification of what is being asked must be determined before another participant can respond to the actual question. In the Zero–g Project the availability of experts to assist with the students as well as the entering and exiting of participants form the project caused the project to appear to roll along in lurches.
Along with the time delay in communication exchanges, technical ability, type of computer equipment needed to participate and integration of the Zero-g Project into current school curriculum were other areas of concern. In thinking about an online course, technical skills needed and the proper equipment are important if all students are to participate in the course and its activities. In my online courses both of these are important factors. The college of Arts and Sciences has determined the basic connection and minimum computer requirements that students must have to take online courses here at OU. Once the students log into the course I walk them through these requirements by linking them to A & S web pages. As my specific courses require the students to view videos on themes, grammar and culture along with listening to MP3 files of vocabulary pronunciation, I have several pages in the course content area that detail the type of programs or software required in the course and provide links to free downloads. The students are also required to record themselves speaking in the target language and post these recordings as WAV or MP3 files. Once again, links are provided to a free program, Audacity, which allows students to record and save files as WAV or MP3. Along with the links, detailed step-by-step instructions have to be included as the learners are at both ends of the spectrum when it comes to technology savvy and ability.
No matter how detailed the instructions are or how fool-proof you think the applications are, there is undoubtedly going to be a learner in need of assistance or technical trouble shooting. This is a big problem in online language courses especially with adding accented letter and diacritical marks to documents and inside the course management quizzing system. Many times the method or codes a student used to add accents in compositions written in Word or similar word processing programs will not function within the course management system. This type of trouble shooting has to be handled in advance of the course going live as very few students will have the luxury of bringing their computer by your office for you to work the bugs out.
Levin and Cervantes describe networked learning as a loosely, coupled communities. This is a great image for online learning communities as there is a lot of activity going on simultaneously and independently in a multitude of locations at various times. While it may not appear possible, learning is going on, just not in the lock-stepped time frames of traditional learning environments. In their closing discussion, the authors again emphasize the need to understand the life cycle of network based learning activities by participants and leaders or instructors. Since the interactions can stretch out over long periods of time the role of the mediator is crucial to keep the networked learning environment and participants progressing through its life cycle. They credit improper mediation or lack of leadership as a big factor in failed networked learning environments. I think we can all see the repercussions of lack of leadership when we reflect on The mystery death of MediaMOO: Seven years of evolution of an online community (Bruckman and Jensen, 2002).
Managing Learning in Virtual Settings: The Role of Context
Context and Learning: A Philosophical Framework
While this article examines both context and content, two important concepts in online course design and development, context is the major focus. Figueiredo and Alfonso (2006) begin by looking at antiquated methods for delivery of content which they liken to mechanist fluid. This fluid content is “transferred from the texts books and the minds of the teachers into the empty minds of the learners” (2). This analogy of pouring knowledge into the minds of learners echoes of Paulo Freire’s “Banking” concept of education in which information is deposited into the learner for storage purposes only. According to Figueiredo and Alfonso’s model, the learner is not a vessel at the periphery of the model, but is now the very center of the model surrounded by content and context.
The authors emphasize that the perception of context in learning is tied to the philosophical paradigm adopted by the instructor or course designer. For this reason three key philosophical questions are addressed including the ontological, epistemological and the methodological. The focus of each question differs. The ontological perspective addresses “What can be known?” The response to this question is colored by our perceptions and experiences, “what can be known is what is constructed by us from our perceptions of reality” (8). To emphasize this concept, the authors quote the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus: “You cannot step twice into the same river” (7). In reflecting on this quote, I would add that no two students step into the same course as their experiences and knowledge make each learner’s learning experience unique.
The epistemological perspective asks the question “What is knowledge or what knowledge can we get?” The response posited to this question is “Knowledge is what we can learn by exploring the causes of the problems we face; the only knowledge we can get is that resulting from our inquiries into the efficient causes of the problems we face” (8). In stark contrast to the epistemological perspective is the methodological which questions “How can we build that knowledge?” The response resembles more of a statement than an answer: “we need knowledge not just to understand but also to build the reality we experience” (9).
In looking at all three of these perspectives there is a definite undercurrent telling us that knowledge is not static, but constantly flowing and changing course. For this reason the authors tell us that, “context is not stable but permanently changing” (12). These changes happen as a result of our experiences and perceptions in learning situations. The implications, in terms of course design are simple. Courses must be designed with room to grow, expand and change. As the authors put it we need to understand design as a process of translation. It is going to differ a little in meaning to everyone who engages in it.
Virtual Settings: E-Learning as Creating Context
Duchastel and Molz are on a mission to shift the focus of content, from a traditional centralized model of delivering information to the learner, to a more modern model of the learner’s access of information. “The point of the shift is to reengage the learner in more personal learning that can be more interesting and meaningful” (2006, 24). The authors identify four quadrants which interact together making up the learning environment. These contexts of learning perspectives include the experiential context, information context, institution context and community context.
The experiential context, or the realm of subjective experience, is the starting point of learning. This is important because the learner’s feelings of being overwhelmed, bored or stimulated with learning are a direct result of his/her prior knowledge and skills. The next context is information which the authors tell us “will always appear contextualized, that is, framed by a certain situation” (28). The institutional context is related to the socioeconomic system and relationships of the learning and where it takes place. The community context deals with the type of group, size, location, cross-cultural and multilingual factors.
From an instructional design stand point each realm encompasses its own challenges. The first realm, experiential, must be designed to allow learners to discover and reflect on personalized learning opportunities. The second realm, information, must contain all the tools and information the learner will need including communication and access. The third realm, institution, is in the cohesiveness between the course’s instructional approach, organizational development and support. The final realm, community, addresses the need for options in the learner’s ability to participate and engage in a variety of real life or authentic learning communities which transcend the traditional classroom. The authors conclusions that a design paradigm shift to a learner centered model is necessary for optimal learning to occur in e-learning or virtual courses incorporating each of the four quadrants of learning contexts is valid. Most educators agree that a paradigm shift from instructor centered to learner centered model in all educational endeavors is in order. It may be a hard task to remold all existing courses and instructors, but for those educators who embrace these new visionary concepts there is a whole new virtual frontier in which they can lead the way by course design and instruction, even if it is one course at a time.
Reflections and conclusions:
There are differences between E-learning and traditional course formats, but too many educators try to duplicate an existing face-to-face course into an e-learning environment. What they discover is that one size does not fit all and one model is not identical to another. Just about the time we entered the new millennium we entered into a new and unfamiliar territory, called cyber space and virtual learning. While a lot of our existing knowledge base serves as a starting point for course design in virtual settings, we as educators have now become the students in a quest to build the best learning programs. In the old school we cooked and dished up the content to hungry learners. Now the recipes are changing and we have to learn how to cook all over again and are unable top rely on all the old tried and true methods (or what we took for granted as tried and true!). We adapted from cooking over wood fires, to gas and electric ranges, and finally onto microwaves. We are both adaptive and enterprising. We made it through all those changes and we will continue to meet the challenges of the future. Knowledge is never static, it is ever changing and evolving, so why would we ever consider that our course designs and methodologies could remain the same?
Burrows, R. & Nettleton, S. (2002). Reflexive modernization and the emergence of wired self-help. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 249-268). Cambridge University Press.
Bruckman, A. & Jensen, C. (2002) The mystery death of MediaMOO: Seven years of evolution of an online community. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 21-33). Cambridge
University Press.
de Figueiredo, A. D. & Afonso, A. P. (2006). Context and learning: A philosophical framework. In A. D. de Figueiredo & A. P. Afonso (Eds.), Managing learning in virtual settings: The role of context (pp. 1-22) London: Information Science Publishing.
Duchastel, P. & Molz, M. (2006). Virtual settings: E- learning as creating context. In A. D. de Figueiredo & A. P. Afonso (Eds.), Managing learning in virtual vettings: The role of context (pp. 24-39) London: Information Science Publishing.
Levin, J. & Cervantes, R. (2002). Understanding the life cycle of network-based learning communities. In K. A. Renninger & W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 269-292). Cambridge University Press.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
What is community?
1. What is a community (How is it defined)? What is a virtual /online community? What bring people together and what motivate them to stay together as members of a community? Cite examples from the recent issues of the Time magazine and/or from your personal experience with a real or virtual community you belong to and discuss the concept of a community.
Community means many different things to individuals. For me community can be my immediate surrounds including family, friends and those I see on a daily basis, but may not be on a name basis. This idea of community includes those in my neighborhood and university and town setting. Then, there is my global community, or all those I communicate with on a daily weekly or monthly basis that are located in a different geographical location than I am. My virtual or online community is comprised of elements from both my community and global community including family, friends, the students I teach, and other colleagues in the field of languages, technology and online and distance education.
In reading through the articles in Time magazine that focus on uses and users of the World Wide Web it is intriguing to see great variety in individual preferences for Internet usage. In the case of my eighteen year old son and his friends, Xbox 360° live is their way of becoming part of the virtual community. They can play a variety of video games with people they know from school or from all over the country. Generally their online bantering is full of bravado and bragging, which is really close to an alter ego in contrast to their real daily persona. All of my kids love YouTube, Facebook and MySpace, but I cannot say I am a user of any of these virtual spaces. YouTube is a new frontier for all those who need a good laugh, bit of attention or mini fame. Facebook and MySpace are too intrusive for me. If I need to share a personal moment I prefer talking to a friend over a good cup of tea, but that does not mean we are in the room. We might be miles apart chatting via emails or Skype. I really am more comfortable using email or working in online course management systems, places where I feel like I have more control over who is in my community, but times change and so might I. When I started teaching Spanish at the university I never imagined that I would be a pioneer in teaching in a fully online environment.
2. How are the real community and the virtual community similar and different at the same time? How do the emerging technologies, specifically the internet, “alter our sense of boundaries, participation, and identity” of a community (p. 14, Shumar & Renniger)?
The internet has allowed access to all corners of the earth, generally for the betterment of society, but sometimes for the worse. Classroom conversations do not have to be limited by the knowledge base of the participants contained within classroom walls. For me I see this as a good thing. We all view things from a different knowledge base and set of experiences, new technologies and the internet allow us to see things from perspectives we could never phantom with out the aid of someone else’s eyes, views, and experiences.
Shumar and Renniger, (2002) highlight the difference between real community and virtual community, “In the physical world, context tends to ground a person in one reality (view of the past, sense of self, ideas of group, etc). In contrast to the physical world, the lack of context in the virtual world enables imagination, identity, and the kind of valuing that deepens interest and enables knowledge building (14). The humorous side of this difference is clearly seen in the lyrics of Brad Paisley’s song “Internet.”
I work down at the pizza pit
And I drive an old Hyundai
I still live with my mom and dad
I'm 5'3 and overweight
I'm a Sci-Fi fanatic
Mild asthmatic
Never been to 2nd base
But there's a whole nother me
That you need to see
Go check out MySpace
'cause online I'm down in Hollywood
I'm 6'5 and I look damn good
I drive a Maserati
I'm a black belt in Karate
And I love a good glass of wine
While these lyrics exemplify the harmless escapism of the virtual community, there is also a darker side that the young and naive should be protected against. In a real, face to face community it is harder to hide our true personalities, motives and opinions, but in the virtual community we can become Jekyll or Hyde. That is, at least until our true colors bleed through.
3. From your own experience of a virtual community, do you think people learn and construct knowledge by participating in the community? If so, what are the implications of a virtual community for learning and change?
From an educational standpoint, the use of a virtual learning community is both exciting and boundless. From elementary to higher ed., being able to see the world and even our own community via multiple perspectives is phenomenal. I feel that learners in virtual communities can learn and construct knowledge the same as they would in a traditional class setting and many times they have the potential to construct even more as the contexts and boundaries of their physical world are diminished. I see this in the online language courses I teach in a form of lowered inhibitions. Students who are too shy to speak out in class participate in the voice forums. While the voice posts can be accessed by all members of the class, the students feel less threatened speaking in the target language via the microphone than in a the classroom setting. It may be a sense of control, as they know the topic they are asked to speak on and can then begin speaking when they are comfortable.
Along with the chance to garner multiple perspectives from around the globe comes the ability to comprise a classroom with students from all walks of life. This is great enrichment opportunity as learners are exposed to differing perspectives while at the same time introduced to people which a vast array of interests, abilities and specialties. I saw this first hand in EIPT 6343 where are collaborative project spanned not only abilities and content areas differences, but also a vast age range. There is something to be said about combining learners of varying ages and interests into a class community as the result can be an outstanding panoramic learning experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
