Final reflections

To be completely honest, while I think that the blog assignment is a very good idea, I think its potential was not fully realized. One of the goals of this assignment was to have a dialog between two classmates. While we started out pretty well, there was not a consistent “conversation” about the blog posting. Perhaps this is due to the time constraints that many of us face. (I know that I am struggling to keep up with all of the reading and posting myself, and I noticed a big drop-off in the discussion board posts this past week).

It was difficult for me to think of an interesting topic to write about, that I had not already written about for the discussion boards. I suppose that may be a good thing – it did cause me to stretch my mind a little bit more than I would be inclined to do without the assignment.  

These comments are not complaints. I think that they are indicative of some of the challenges of asynchronous learning that we read about earlier in the semester. Attrition is a problem in Distance Ed, more so than in face-to-face classes. This blog activity was a good attempt to overcome the isolation that is felt during an online class.

Learning to be strategic

As I read Moore & Kearsley’s discussion of instructional systems design, I was struck by how much face to face instruction would benefit from this kind of strategic planning. I suppose many teachers – good teachers – use a strategic approach like this, but it’s so much more tempting to get ready to teach “on the fly.”

One of the challenges that I face is that I teach individual (or “one-shot”) sessions that are usually 50 minutes long. I’m kind of like a guest lecturer, except that the students come to me in the library. This means that I don’t know them as people and that I don’t have a chance to follow up on what I’ve covered. One-shot online sessions are even more difficult than in person classes, because the technology is a barrier to making a personal connection with the students.

In any case, the list of general design principles at the end of Chapter 5 (Good structure; Clear objectives; Small units; Planned participation; Completeness; Repetition; Synthesis; Stimulation & variety; Open-ended; Feedback & evaluation) (pp. 120-121) are a quick reminder of what I should be thinking of each and every time I get ready to teach one of those 50-minute classes.

It’s so easy to get into a rut and forget that the students haven’t heard me do this 6 times in a week. Planning and preparing intentionally, even if it’s just coming up with a stronger general outline, should help to make my sessions more engaging.

Moore & Kearsley, Chapter 5, "Course Design and Development" pp.97-122.

Blocking open education

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that the State of Minnesota's Office of Higher Education has banned Coursera from offering its free online courses in the state. For now, Coursera has added a note to its terms of service in order to advise Minnesotans that they can't use it within the state boundaries. Questions of how this will be enforced are raised in the article.

It seems like MOOCs - specifically Coursera in this case -- are seen as a threat to other institutions of higher education, even though they may serve a different audience and are not offering for-credit or degree programs at this time.The reason cited for blocking Coursera is a Minnesota seems to be a technicality - a law relating to the permissions sought by institutions that are offering courses both online and face-to-face.

This Forbes article has a bit more information - apparently, it is because the content in Coursera comes from institutions that do grant degrees.

Coursera itself is not offering degrees, so this seems like a pretty fuzzy line to draw - what defines a course? Would online tutorials or self-study materials on YouTube fall under this category? What about other open education resources? This seems like a very slippery slope.

Citation:
Mangan, K. (2012, Oct 18). Minnesota gives Coursera the boot, citing a decades-old law. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/minnesota-gives-coursera-the-boot-citing-a-decades-old-law/40542

Pereira, E. (2012, Oct 19). Minnesota bans free online education. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/evapereira/2012/10/19/minnesota-bans-free-online-education/

Digital Life – What Consequences?

I will readily admit that this isn’t going to be a fully fleshed out blog post, just some musings based on a few recent experiences I’ve had at work.

For assignment one, I chose Blackboard Collaborate as the synchronous platform to review. I have some experience with this platform, since we use Blackboard at the College where I work. I’ve taught a couple of one-hour workshops using Collaborate, and have not had any problems with the technology. Recently, we have also decided to try to use Collaborate as a meeting tool – geographically, our three campuses are 30 miles apart and it’s difficult to schedule in-person meetings.  The other day, a colleague ended up having to drive those 30 miles after all, to meet in-person with her committee when the Collaborate software failed.

This has led me to think about the balance between the promise of technology and the sometimes less-optimal reality of implementing it. This summer, I had been scheduled to present at a conference, using video conferencing, but could not because the connection kept dropping out. This was also from work – a location that has a fast internet connection and a high level of technical support.

I suppose this is somewhat related to our previous conversation about disparity of access to technology (hardware and software), but I’d actually like to go in a different direction.

It seems like we take the stability of web-based platforms as a given, in both personal and professional settings, when in reality we are placing our trust in a company that is far removed from our own local interests. True, most companies will do their best to provide a stable interface – they’ll lose business if they don’t! – but I do wonder what the implications are.

I’m curious to know more about the content rights that faculty members retain for course materials that are put into a learning management system (do they become College property, or does the faculty member own the copyright? What about “common courses” that are designed by a department but taught by adjuncts?). I’m also curious about what happens to the ownership of the material if those courses are turned into open educational resources. The asynchronous learning management system that I reviewed is called Canvas, and it allows faculty members or course designers to make the course public, giving anyone read-only access to the course. Individual institutions must have policies that address these questions.

Perhaps I’ll follow up on these musings and do a little research!

Technology, Media, and Content

In one of the required readings for Module 1, Moore and Kearsley claim that we often conflate technology and media, where instead, they each serve a different purpose: “Technology is the physical vehicle  that carries messages, and the messages are represented in a medium” (Basic concepts, 2005, p. 7). After making this distinction, they go on to propose that high-quality content is more important than the way it is delivered. Our fascination with new technology often leads us to jump in head first to try it out, without necessarily evaluating whether or not it is the best way to deliver the content.

Multimedia platforms can really help to personalize distance education. One of the faculty members I work with is a literature professor. He records himself reading some of the required poems so that his online students become familiar with his voice, and experience an oral interpretation – almost a performance—of the work.

At the same time, there are limitations that make use of both technology and media difficult. I work at a community college, and many of our students do not have computers at home. They use the computers in the library and the labs on campus, or they use their cell phones to access the internet. While I do not disagree with Moore and Kearsley about the importance of high-quality content, I do think that a digital divide  still exists and must be considered when preparing materials for distance education. This was in the back of my mind during the Module 2a discussions about asynchronous and synchronous learning – without a computer and/or a private space to participate in an online webinar, synchronous learning may not be an option for some students.

In addition, students with special needs must be considered. When I have created online tutorials (podcasts or videos), I have provided transcripts as well. I have to admit, though, that I have not made accommodations when I have presented an online webinar, and am not entirely sure how that kind of presentation could be made fully accessible. 

I have come to realize that it is important to make a deliberate choice about how to deliver content, and that this actually applies to both distance education and face-to-face teaching. 

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Basic concepts. Distance education: A systems view (pp. 1-22). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.