I teach a short non-award course for high school students grades 10 -12. This course is about preparing these high school students for further study at university in a health discipline. It focuses on study skills and knowledge using health examples. It is delivered online through a Learning Management System. There is a very linear approach to the course, eg. read this/ watch this, then students discuss their thoughts on the discussion forum. The assessment in the course revolves around students participating in the discussion forum (assessment one) and researching a health topic of the students’ choice (assessment two), discussing what the health topic or problem is, who it is affecting, what is currently being done about the problem and what health professionals are involved in the health topic or problem. The students would then compose a 5 minute presentation that they would write the speech out for, and also put together a powerpoint presentation to accompany the speech. The speech would need to have in-text referencing and a reference list at the end. Students have to submit their assessment online in the learning management system. The course is about students learning and practicing the skills required to effectively navigate university, BEFORE they come to university. It uses Conley’s (2007) model of college readiness to inform the course design.
After participating in the Networked and Global learning course I came to the conclusion that the approach that I am using in my course could be improved upon, for several reasons. Firstly, the whole idea of the course is to give students the skills to be independent learners. This is difficult to accomplish if the learners are still relying heavily on the teacher to do this. If the course were more learner centered then this would add to the students being engaged in what they are doing and less inclined to continue to rely heavily on the teacher (Kehrwald, n.d.). Another reason that I don’t believe that the course is truly using a networked and global learning approach, or a connectivist approach (Siemens, 2008) is that the assessment is not truly authentic. Authentic assessment consists of, “the opportunity for students to be effective performers with acquired knowledge, and to craft polished, performances or products in collaboration with others. It also requires the assessment to be seamlessly integrated with the activity” (Herrington, 2006, p. 3). Another issue with the course revolves around collaboration between the learners in the course. The students are expected to participate in the discussion forums, but often the questions being asked in these forums are lower level questions and don’t prompt discussion or collaboration amongst the learners. Bringing a more collaborative approach or a community of practice approach will build on the capacity of the learners to critically reflect on their learning (Yang, 2009).
How will Networked and Global Learning inform transformative change in this course?
In an earlier blog post, I discussed Rebecca’s conversation around an article by Selwyn (2014), talking about being critical of technology use in the classroom. After reading her reflection of this and writing my own, I came to the conclusion that how I use technology in my course would need to change. After reading Siemens (2008) I also decided that my role in teaching my course would need to change in order to dictate change in the students’ behavior. If I want motivated, autonomous and self-directed learners, then I needed to create a course that fostered that behavior through the activities and assessment that are presented to students. The course design would need to change in order to change the behavior patterns of my students. I thought that I was using authentic learning principles in my course, but after reading Herrington (2006), I believe that this is not entirely true.
Therefore there are changes to the course that I am going to make to prompt these changes in my learners. Firstly, I am going to focus on creating a community of learning in my course (Wenger, 1998). Herrington (2006) suggests that in order to create this community there needs to be “collaborative construction of knowledge” (p. 2). Rather than having multiple discussion forums that ask the students to answer one-dimensional questions, the implementation of a problem in which the students need to collaborate together to solve and discuss online would work better. This prompts the second change in the course that revolves around the assessment. As mentioned previously, the assessment is done individually and uploaded to the course, then marked and seen only by me. There is no peer involvement or feedback from peers and there is no problem- based learning. Chernobilsky, Nagarajan & Hmelo-Silver (2005) assert that problem based learning (PBL) is a highly collaborative tool. They also explain that “In PBL, students work in small groups with the guidance of a facilitator learning through solving problems and reflecting on their experience” (p. 53). I believe that through the implementation of PBL into the assessment, as well as students progressively working on the assessment throughout the course rather than at the end, and students collaboratively peer reviewing each other’s work and using this to reflect on their own work will add to the authentic nature of the course. How this is to be done, may need to be investigated further and may prompt me looking into technologies that are easily accessible and free for students to access, as well as taking a closer look at my practices as a facilitator in an online environment.
With any change in course design comes the questioning of whether there will be any impact, good or bad, as well as the benefits and limitations of any such approach. One of the biggest benefits to students learning to collaboratively solve problems online is that students can come up with some wonderful collaborative results and can learn to critically reflect on their own learning through doing and working with others, and through seeing multiple perspectives of the same problem, thus sharing the cognitive load (Chernobilsky, Nagarajan & Hmelo-Silver, 2005). A drawback to this course design is that if students are not autonomous learners in the online environment and don’t have the skills or schema to adequately navigate in a professional manner, then students may struggle with collaboratively participating in an online environment and explaining their reasoning to other students (Whipp & Chiarelli, 2004).
Ultimately, after experiencing Networked and Global Learning for myself, I have reconsidered how learning and teaching can occur through a more connected approach. Using authentic learning principles, problem based learning and a collaborative approach to solving these problems; I believe that my students will be able to experience a deeper level of understanding and will learn essential skills for the 21st Century that they can then take on to further study.
References
Chernobilsky, E., Nagarajan, A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2005). Problem-based learning online: multiple perspectives on collaborative knowledge construction. Retrieved from http://www.edu-projects.eu/euclides/elibrary/Chernobilsky.pdf
Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness, Volume 3. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center. Retrieved from http://evergreen.edu/washingtoncenter/docs/conleycollegereadiness.pdf
Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for authentic learning environments and tasks. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=edupapers
Selwyn, N. (2014). Technology and education – why it‘s crucial to be critical. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/7771394/Technology_and_education_-_why_its_crucial_to_be_critical
Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Actas Do Encontro Sobre Web.
Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-Regulation in a Web-Based Course: A Case Study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52 (4) 5-22.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Yang, S.-H. (2009). Using Blogs to Enhance Critical Reflection and Community of Practice. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (2), 11–21.
After participating in the Networked and Global learning course I came to the conclusion that the approach that I am using in my course could be improved upon, for several reasons. Firstly, the whole idea of the course is to give students the skills to be independent learners. This is difficult to accomplish if the learners are still relying heavily on the teacher to do this. If the course were more learner centered then this would add to the students being engaged in what they are doing and less inclined to continue to rely heavily on the teacher (Kehrwald, n.d.). Another reason that I don’t believe that the course is truly using a networked and global learning approach, or a connectivist approach (Siemens, 2008) is that the assessment is not truly authentic. Authentic assessment consists of, “the opportunity for students to be effective performers with acquired knowledge, and to craft polished, performances or products in collaboration with others. It also requires the assessment to be seamlessly integrated with the activity” (Herrington, 2006, p. 3). Another issue with the course revolves around collaboration between the learners in the course. The students are expected to participate in the discussion forums, but often the questions being asked in these forums are lower level questions and don’t prompt discussion or collaboration amongst the learners. Bringing a more collaborative approach or a community of practice approach will build on the capacity of the learners to critically reflect on their learning (Yang, 2009).
How will Networked and Global Learning inform transformative change in this course?
In an earlier blog post, I discussed Rebecca’s conversation around an article by Selwyn (2014), talking about being critical of technology use in the classroom. After reading her reflection of this and writing my own, I came to the conclusion that how I use technology in my course would need to change. After reading Siemens (2008) I also decided that my role in teaching my course would need to change in order to dictate change in the students’ behavior. If I want motivated, autonomous and self-directed learners, then I needed to create a course that fostered that behavior through the activities and assessment that are presented to students. The course design would need to change in order to change the behavior patterns of my students. I thought that I was using authentic learning principles in my course, but after reading Herrington (2006), I believe that this is not entirely true.
Therefore there are changes to the course that I am going to make to prompt these changes in my learners. Firstly, I am going to focus on creating a community of learning in my course (Wenger, 1998). Herrington (2006) suggests that in order to create this community there needs to be “collaborative construction of knowledge” (p. 2). Rather than having multiple discussion forums that ask the students to answer one-dimensional questions, the implementation of a problem in which the students need to collaborate together to solve and discuss online would work better. This prompts the second change in the course that revolves around the assessment. As mentioned previously, the assessment is done individually and uploaded to the course, then marked and seen only by me. There is no peer involvement or feedback from peers and there is no problem- based learning. Chernobilsky, Nagarajan & Hmelo-Silver (2005) assert that problem based learning (PBL) is a highly collaborative tool. They also explain that “In PBL, students work in small groups with the guidance of a facilitator learning through solving problems and reflecting on their experience” (p. 53). I believe that through the implementation of PBL into the assessment, as well as students progressively working on the assessment throughout the course rather than at the end, and students collaboratively peer reviewing each other’s work and using this to reflect on their own work will add to the authentic nature of the course. How this is to be done, may need to be investigated further and may prompt me looking into technologies that are easily accessible and free for students to access, as well as taking a closer look at my practices as a facilitator in an online environment.
With any change in course design comes the questioning of whether there will be any impact, good or bad, as well as the benefits and limitations of any such approach. One of the biggest benefits to students learning to collaboratively solve problems online is that students can come up with some wonderful collaborative results and can learn to critically reflect on their own learning through doing and working with others, and through seeing multiple perspectives of the same problem, thus sharing the cognitive load (Chernobilsky, Nagarajan & Hmelo-Silver, 2005). A drawback to this course design is that if students are not autonomous learners in the online environment and don’t have the skills or schema to adequately navigate in a professional manner, then students may struggle with collaboratively participating in an online environment and explaining their reasoning to other students (Whipp & Chiarelli, 2004).
Ultimately, after experiencing Networked and Global Learning for myself, I have reconsidered how learning and teaching can occur through a more connected approach. Using authentic learning principles, problem based learning and a collaborative approach to solving these problems; I believe that my students will be able to experience a deeper level of understanding and will learn essential skills for the 21st Century that they can then take on to further study.
References
Chernobilsky, E., Nagarajan, A., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2005). Problem-based learning online: multiple perspectives on collaborative knowledge construction. Retrieved from http://www.edu-projects.eu/euclides/elibrary/Chernobilsky.pdf
Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefining college readiness, Volume 3. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center. Retrieved from http://evergreen.edu/washingtoncenter/docs/conleycollegereadiness.pdf
Herrington, J. (2006). Authentic e-learning in higher education: Design principles for authentic learning environments and tasks. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=edupapers
Selwyn, N. (2014). Technology and education – why it‘s crucial to be critical. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/7771394/Technology_and_education_-_why_its_crucial_to_be_critical
Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Actas Do Encontro Sobre Web.
Whipp, J. L., & Chiarelli, S. (2004). Self-Regulation in a Web-Based Course: A Case Study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52 (4) 5-22.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Yang, S.-H. (2009). Using Blogs to Enhance Critical Reflection and Community of Practice. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (2), 11–21.