Learning by doing and reflection

ONL201 is ending, hence this blog post will summarize and reflect upon my experiences, learning and development. “Learning by doing and reflection” is a phrase I usually return to, when thinking about or discussing different aspects of education. This ONL-course has very much lived up to that phrase, and by that advanced my understanding and learning of blended education.

The course has offered several opportunities to know more about and apply different “IT-tools and -approaches”, such as Google drive, Coogle, blog and webinars. In the beginning of the course, I thought that apply and test different tools was the man aim. However, most rewarding have the discussions in the PBL-group (8) been, listening to and argument for different viewpoints with the team members, and the facilitators. Those discussions have made me rethink and reflect, and to learn more about different aspects of blended education.   

Due to the corona pandemic, the learning generated in the course could naturally be put into practice. Realizing the possibilities and advantages of designing online course activities is one major impact from the course into my own practice. For example, how to think and structure webinars with many participants. To communicate before (and after) a webinar, by means of a digital padlet, is an interesting way to involve participants. Another aspects of learning concerning webinars, is that some of the arranged webinars in the course did not live up to my expectations, even if organizer's aim and intentions with the webinars were very. I still learned from them, from a student perspective, i.e. how could it be arranged in another way, to make participants more involved and committed (in the breakout rooms for example)?     

The many opportunities with online education is great, but is not in itself a design mean to all kind of educational activities. I think many of us are more pro the “traditional off-line learning” or more pro “new ways of going online”. A guideline here should be: Always keep the intended learning outcomes in mind and always have the learning in focus (preferably in according to constructive alignment). From that, we will probably come up with a wide variety of blended education.

From the course I have extend my knowledge and apprehension of online education, and sees almost an endless road ahead of possibilities. Together with the “guideline”, I will strive in my teacher role to continuously improve and innovate my educational practice – I.e. doing, reflect, learn and improve.

To summit up: This ONL-course has been very valuable to me in the continuous journey of educational development. Moreover, thanks members and facilitators of group 8, for a pleasant and learning collaboration.

A new way of thinking concerning online education

As a teacher, I like teaching and learning activities (TLA) that becomes somewhat more personal compared with giving a lecture, i.e. meeting students in seminars (smaller groups) or supervising master thesis students. Hence, I have had some resistance to embark online/blended learning. When acquainted with the concept “Flipped class room” I started my journey towards blended learning. I could reduce traditional lectures and instead make recordings, refer to videos, and put more emphasizes on discussions in follow-up seminars.

The “game changer” for education, i.e. the spread of the corona virus, forced me to advance into the field of online learning. I was lucky to join the ONL community and its introductory course. The course guided me to new approaches and tools, supporting online education and learning, and  possibilities to apply and discuss them within an ONL-group (no 8). As a result, or a consequence, I see many more options and possibilities to transform traditional education to online, which I before  could not apprehend. However, online education and learning is not, in my perspective, a solution to all kind of TLAs, but can in many ways improve both learning and efficiency.

From the reflections above, it was also very useful to know about the concept “Community of Inquiry” (Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes & Garrison, 2013) and the more concrete Five-stage model (Salmon, 2013). I especially found the emphasis on socialization when designing a blended/online course interesting. It is relative easy to change a traditional course to become online, for example using recordings, communicate via Zoom, and managing all assignment and study material via a Learning Management System (LMS). But to make students committed and motivated becomes another kind of challenge, than meeting students, or students meeting students, in a campus course.

The concept “Scaffolding for learning” (Salmon, 2014) seems to be important, more than I believed before study the literature and videos in topic 4. I realize now, when designing an online/blended course that I need to go deeper into activities that promotes students and teachers to socialize, as a fundamental prerequisite for commitment and motivation. This is probably the main challenge to obtain a successful online course, i.e. where students (and teachers enjoy) the course and obtain the intended learning outcomes. I am not sure how practicing socialization in an online course, but hopefully further exploration will take me, and my students, there J

References

Salmon, G (2014) Scaffolding for learning. [Homepage] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pKsZ6dVhlI&feature=emb_title

Salmon, G (2013) The Five Stage Model. [Homepage] http://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Edmonton: AU Press. Chapter 1 “The Community of Inquiry Conceptual framework”.

“Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences?”

This blog has the same title as one of the recommended papers for this topic (no 3) in the course, written by Neus Capdeferro and Margarida Romero (see the full reference below). I will discuss and reflect upon that theme from two perspectives: As a teacher in a course based on collaborative learning (i.e. problem-based and project-oriented learning, PBPOL) and as a participant in an ONL- & PBL-course. In the later, the collaboration is on distance, in the former both on distance and at campus. Capdeferro and Romero claims, based on some other studies described in the paper, that students engaged in collaborative learning activities could feel a high level of frustration. They define the concept of frustration based on Mandler (1975): “a negative emotion aroused upon encountering an obstacle in the achievement of a task, goal, or expectation, or in satisfying one’s needs”. Sources of frustration, according to Capdeferro and Romero, are, for example; Lack of instructions, assessment imbalance, unshared goals and communication difficulties.  To avoid or reduce frustration among collaborating participants online Brindley, Blaschke and Walti (2009) discuss some measures, for example: Monitoring and feedback, sufficient time for the task, clear instructions and motivation for participation embedded in course design.

According to my experiences being responsible and examiner for a PBPOL-course, the issues and measures mentioned above are more or less the same in online and campus courses. I recognise and experiences all discussed in the papers by Capdeferro and Romero (2012) and Lazar, Jones, Bessiere, Ceaparu and Shneiderman (2004). Hence, I think frustration in collaborative activities online have more to do with the phenomenon of collaboration, than if the course is given online or at campus. However, there seems to be differences on a more underlying level. When students are working in a team that do not meet in real life, frustrations with other team members can manifest in an earlier phase, i.e. compared with teams working together at campus. A reason might be that online-students do not get the possibility to socialise with each other in a more relaxed setting (for example, eating lunch or visiting a café together). Due to the distance, students do not get to know each other well, which prevents trust among participants in a group. This can described by means of the “Johari window” (Luft and Ingham, 2001), which is a model with the aim to improving interpersonal communication, in relation to feedback. The model describes how people in a group needs to have an “open arena” to create trust, i.e. where they know themselves and also let other know who they are.

Another reflection on frustration in collaboration is from my experience of participating in an ONL- & PBL-course. Compared with the other course, this course is not project-based, with shorter collaboration tasks in two-week sprints. Due to the course design, the collaboration is not so complex/extensive than in a PBPOL-course, which to some part reduce frustration and conflicts. If compared with the well-known FIRO-model (Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship Orientation) developed by Will Shutz, the group’s development stays in the “Inclusion phase”, i.e. being polite and avoiding conflicts. However, because of that, this type of online course can create frustration, where group members feel that the depth of collaboration not evolving so much.

References

Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences?. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 26-44. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i2.1127

Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. & Walti, C. (2009). Creating Effective Collaborative Learning Groups in an Online Environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10 (3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i3.675

Lazar, J., Jones, A., Bessiere, K., Ceaparu, I., & Shneiderman, B. (2004). User frustration with technology in the workplace. AMCIS 2003 Proceedings. Paper 283. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2003/283

Luft J and Ingham H's Johari Window concept. (2001-4) http://postdoc.hms.harvard.edu /slides/AliceSapienzaJohariwindowmodel.pdf

Is technologies for open education a driver for learning?

This period of the ONL-course we have focus on “Sharing and openness” in education, a very relevant and actual topic, and has been so for a long time, see for example Sharon, F. and and Deane, E. (1997). There are many aspects of “openness” in education, for example: Accessibility for both teachers and students, contributing to society (doing well), open up for joint development, and procedures how to “explore and exploit”.  

In this blog, I have chosen to elaborate on the technological possibilities of open education. The ONL-course provides an excellent opportunity to explore this topic, including many examples of different IT-tools and solutions. When getting to know some of these tools and solutions, I sometimes ask myself: Why? More precisely, in what way do these facilitate learning? An answer would be that technologies for open education make it easier for more people to attend in different forms of educations, which is a way towards opportunities for learning. Also, some tools (as the padlet for example, used and discussed in the webinar (topic 2) by Kiruthika  Ragupathi  and Alastair Creelman, provides participants to share and discuss ideas, which promote learning (i.e. based on discussions and reflections). Other tools, for example Prezi (prezi.com) or Mural (mural.com) facilitate presentations, which then promotes understanding, and learning.

However, from my point of view, the main contribution of many IT-tools and solutions is to share information. The core of education however, as I see it, is learning. And if open technologies are here to facilitate learning is not obvious to me (even if indirectly as described previously). Maybe is technologies for open education foremost about sharing and give information away (see, for example the Ted talk by David Wiley). A risk though, as I see it, is that increased openness in education more become a “quantitative approach”, i.e. sharing massive information, than a “qualitative approach”, promoting knowledge and learning. Hence, most IT-tools and solution could probably support learning in education, but need to apply with the specific context in mind (

e.g. type of course, seminar, program, lecture). In our ONL-group (no 8) we have focused on advantages and disadvantages of open education, form a wider perspective than discussed in this blog. Please take a look and share your opinions with us.

References

Fraser, Sharon and Deane, Elizabeth. Why open learning? [online]. Australian Universities' Review, The, Vol. 40, No. 1, 1997: 25-31.

Wiley, David. Ted talk: Open education and the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0syrgsH6M

Learning aspects in the digital era

I sure find myself as a teacher and as individual to be in a digital age. Facebook, LinkedIn, Youtube and other IT-tools are a common in my private life, while learning management systems and communication tools as Canvas and Zoom are common in the part of my life as a teacher. However, I’m more a visitor than a resident, using the concepts discussed in the videos by David White.

As a teacher and educator, I’m interesting of the process of learning, which in a simplified way can be expressed as change in mindset or behavior. I believe that many in their role as educators still focus more on teaching, i.e. being an educator, than focusing on how students learn (and what principles, methods and tools promoting that). Hence, in this digital era, I’m curious how digital literacy can support learning. 

Therefore, I’ve enrolled in a course in Open Network Learning (ONL 201), to get the possibility to apply and reflect upon different aspects of “digital possibilities” in an online course. Even if the course recently started, and one out of five topics been discussed, I already see new ways of promote learning by means of the digital possibilities. 

For example, using webinars as a way of managing courses with students on distance (i.e. students abroad doing their master theses). Another example is making seminars more interactive via a digital padlet, used in the introduction lecture (topic 2) by Alastair Creelman and Kiruthika Raupathi, making the participants to reflect and indirectly create the design for coming seminars.

However, in parallel to the experiences mentioned above, I also have a feeling that the digital era/trend is driven by “digital enthusiasts”, i.e. that focus somewhat more on being digital than how digital tools support learning. Here a comparison can be made with teaching versus learning. For example, in one of the webinars several different tools were used, which to some extent created confusion among the participants. Internal discussions between the educators were to some part not focused on the participants’ learning, and simultaneously chatting while having the lecture, was from my perspective decreasing learning capabilities. Hence, the webinar, from my perspective, was rather an expression for promoting different IT-tools, but with no or little connection to learning. 

This course is one step of my journey to more in-depth explore the digital world as an educator. It will be interesting to know more, and get more experiences during the course, concerning digital tools and possibilities. However, for me, the core in all type of education is learning,   and it will be interesting to learn more about learning-aspects in the digital era.