This week the teams were asked to rethink improvements on our Edweb based on the pacing of our instruction. In the former where I participated, we only had 2 major threads. The first one was the thought I contributed regarding creating the big picture for the learners. The jump-off point for me was the 3 Bricklayers’ Story which was appropriate in characterizing the differences people view instruction. Chad replied that seeing the end in mind helps in his motivation. Kerry wrote that the challenge of instructional designers is helping the learners envisage the cathedral from the pile of bricks.
Chad brought another interesting issue, that of distinguishing between effective repetition and annoying redundancy. While it is true that adult learners benefit from the former, they find unreasonable duplication insulting. In response, my second contribution for the week was to identify other areas in the Edweb development wherein we need to decide on these thin lines between effectiveness and annoyance. It is true that each facet of our project development involves designing for our target learners who are not heterogeneous in one or more aspects.
A value-adding discussion this week was participation in the Jan 2008 cohort’s Webcon. As a formative evaluator, I was tasked to participate in the Blogs & Wikis session. I found this to be an eye-opener, being a newbie in the uses of the Social Web. The information I gathered and the practice skills afforded by the session in a safe environment engaged my curiousity. Moreover, the exchanges regarding the issues associated with web 2.0 such as Intellectual Property which I started, helped me compare and contrast the Asian versus the US perspectives.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
How will Learning in the future be?
I saw this presentation on slideshare.net as part of my participation in the Blogs & Wikis conference session. It predicts possibilities in terms of lifestyle and media. And since both affect learning, I wonder how we should design learning in the future to address evolving needs and preferences.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Preparing for Online Learning
Thinking about learning in an online environment was the topic for this week. Since the f2f setting cannot be exactly replicated online (at times, replication is not really the goal!), there will be different issues to address.
The most common concern that emerged is the discussion aspect. Unlike the traditional classroom sessions where the instructor can request a person to start the exchange through the use of both verbal and non-verbal cues, this does not apply completely online. Jessica cited the example of our webcon wherein participants were reluctant to make the first post. Our teams (Engage and Blended Learning) had to make the first posts for each other to get the ball rolling. Jessica and Elizabeth both were reflecting on possible options to get people past this initial barrier.
Overcoming this reluctance is critical in view of the value of online discussions, which was the subject of my contribution this week. Bender wrote that unlike classroom dialogue which is ephemeral in nature, online discussions are captured in text that allows reflection at the demand of the learners. For this reason, I suggested that as facilitators we must encourage quality output that will benefit both the contributor and the other participants. This could be accomplished by providing more structure in terms of expectations to newbies in the online environment. By specifying guidelines on what to post, and when, the confidence level can increase. By being definitive on what the posts should contain, we can increase the probability that the posts would generate learning for the entire group.
Do we always have to be directive in our discussion forum? I don’ t think so. I would always go by the rule of know our audience. If you have an online audience new to this learning methodology, the motivational aspect must be built first. This is easier when there is something at stake- like a prize of a grade. When the learners recognize the benefits of online learning and the richness of the discussion, hopefully they will govern themselves and the facilitator can pull back as needed.
Other topics discussed this week included the importance of memory brought up by Sheri: how representing text visually can make powerful learning happen; and the ingredients of a successful Communities of Practice through an article generously shared by Kerry.
There would be many more aspects of online learning to reflect on. As we engage in it more, there would be others that we will uncover. After I have successfully studied online years ago, I have stopped wondering how I can replicate f2f online. Instead, I am exploring the uniqueness of online learning and what it has to offer.
The most common concern that emerged is the discussion aspect. Unlike the traditional classroom sessions where the instructor can request a person to start the exchange through the use of both verbal and non-verbal cues, this does not apply completely online. Jessica cited the example of our webcon wherein participants were reluctant to make the first post. Our teams (Engage and Blended Learning) had to make the first posts for each other to get the ball rolling. Jessica and Elizabeth both were reflecting on possible options to get people past this initial barrier.
Overcoming this reluctance is critical in view of the value of online discussions, which was the subject of my contribution this week. Bender wrote that unlike classroom dialogue which is ephemeral in nature, online discussions are captured in text that allows reflection at the demand of the learners. For this reason, I suggested that as facilitators we must encourage quality output that will benefit both the contributor and the other participants. This could be accomplished by providing more structure in terms of expectations to newbies in the online environment. By specifying guidelines on what to post, and when, the confidence level can increase. By being definitive on what the posts should contain, we can increase the probability that the posts would generate learning for the entire group.
Do we always have to be directive in our discussion forum? I don’ t think so. I would always go by the rule of know our audience. If you have an online audience new to this learning methodology, the motivational aspect must be built first. This is easier when there is something at stake- like a prize of a grade. When the learners recognize the benefits of online learning and the richness of the discussion, hopefully they will govern themselves and the facilitator can pull back as needed.
Other topics discussed this week included the importance of memory brought up by Sheri: how representing text visually can make powerful learning happen; and the ingredients of a successful Communities of Practice through an article generously shared by Kerry.
There would be many more aspects of online learning to reflect on. As we engage in it more, there would be others that we will uncover. After I have successfully studied online years ago, I have stopped wondering how I can replicate f2f online. Instead, I am exploring the uniqueness of online learning and what it has to offer.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Planning Innovations in Online Teaching
This week we focused on improving our online teaching techniques using Bender’s suggestions. Similar to Week 3’s format, each person in the group identified strategies that can be helpful in facilitating our Web Conference sessions.
The major themes that emerged in our discussions included:
Team teaching and shared teaching : It is common to use these two terms interchangeably but the method of collaborating is different. Shared teaching, which is essentially taking turns to deliver instruction, is deemed to be easier; team teaching, on the other hand requires more coordination in the sense that both instructors are “on the floor” at the same time. The fluidity of the session can be compromised if they are not pursuing the same objectives, or at times, possess markedly different styles. Experiences were shared about the challenges and benefits of both techniques.
The group also discussed the difficulties of using chats for reflective discussions. The speed and multiple tasks to attend to during such sessions do not secure it high marks for more deliberate thoughts. Threaded discussions and blogs are better tools to move the learning events higher in Bloom’s Taxonomy.
I liked how David and Linda packaged the above topics nicely. Both wrote about the reinforcing relationship between team teaching and chatting. The former (sharing responsibilities of the classroom space at the same time) can provide structure for the latter to make it more effective. While this may seem common sense, this link was put together so insightfully. Greg also provided an example of possibly organizing a chat session via a round-robin approach.
Maria suggested the use of electronic library shelf which will provide references for learners. I thought this was a good idea to address various types of learners: visual learners who need visual stimulation either through graphics or text; “thinkers” who prefer the ability to deepen their learning by pursuing more information at their own pace; and reflective who prefer to challenge their mental models and constantly seek ways to improve these.
David also suggested using Virtual Tours as a way of offering tours of simulation tools to learners. After describing his ideas he asked for inputs on improving these. I thought that my best contribution for the week was in addressing his question through combining declarative, procedural and higher order thinking activities to move the learners to a more relevant appreciation of the topic. While this is something I regularly use in face-to-face sessions, Marilyn expressed confidence that it can work online as well.
And so we continue with the work at hand...finalizing our facilitation plans, hopefully brimming with more engaging ideas we learned this week.
The major themes that emerged in our discussions included:
Team teaching and shared teaching : It is common to use these two terms interchangeably but the method of collaborating is different. Shared teaching, which is essentially taking turns to deliver instruction, is deemed to be easier; team teaching, on the other hand requires more coordination in the sense that both instructors are “on the floor” at the same time. The fluidity of the session can be compromised if they are not pursuing the same objectives, or at times, possess markedly different styles. Experiences were shared about the challenges and benefits of both techniques.
The group also discussed the difficulties of using chats for reflective discussions. The speed and multiple tasks to attend to during such sessions do not secure it high marks for more deliberate thoughts. Threaded discussions and blogs are better tools to move the learning events higher in Bloom’s Taxonomy.
I liked how David and Linda packaged the above topics nicely. Both wrote about the reinforcing relationship between team teaching and chatting. The former (sharing responsibilities of the classroom space at the same time) can provide structure for the latter to make it more effective. While this may seem common sense, this link was put together so insightfully. Greg also provided an example of possibly organizing a chat session via a round-robin approach.
Maria suggested the use of electronic library shelf which will provide references for learners. I thought this was a good idea to address various types of learners: visual learners who need visual stimulation either through graphics or text; “thinkers” who prefer the ability to deepen their learning by pursuing more information at their own pace; and reflective who prefer to challenge their mental models and constantly seek ways to improve these.
David also suggested using Virtual Tours as a way of offering tours of simulation tools to learners. After describing his ideas he asked for inputs on improving these. I thought that my best contribution for the week was in addressing his question through combining declarative, procedural and higher order thinking activities to move the learners to a more relevant appreciation of the topic. While this is something I regularly use in face-to-face sessions, Marilyn expressed confidence that it can work online as well.
And so we continue with the work at hand...finalizing our facilitation plans, hopefully brimming with more engaging ideas we learned this week.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Asking Questions about Formative Evaluation
Dr. Marty Tessmer of CITT was our guest this week. We read a chapter of his work on Formative Evaluation and were able to hear his interview with Dave regarding the same subject. Since I was not able to participate in this synchronous activity due to technical problems, my involvement was limited to the discussion that commenced thereafter.
The questions were generally divided into those specific to our EdWeb projects and general queries regarding Formative Evaluation. Edweb-specific questions dealt heavily on how to assess the effectiveness of our navigation systems. Since most of us in class are new at constructing our own instructional websites, there is a concern that what may work for us may not work for our target audience. Similarly, the appropriate writing style was asked to which Dr. Tessmer replied that conversational is best, citing the practice used by screenplay writers.
Richard brought up a very interesting point relating content and navigation. He wrote that the amount of content and what the instructor wants to do with it affects how a learner should be able to navigate the website. I think that this emphasizes the need to clear about our objectives. A website can serve many purposes haphazardly, but what we want is for it to serve our intended purpose successfully.
My contribution opened up the Formative Evaluation discussion in general. Based on my work, it appears that it can be used selectively to support the agenda of various stakeholders. Items can be highlighted or downplayed as the “reporter” sees fit. With no clear, strict universal rules governing its implementation, the “art” wins over the science. David seconded this line of thought when he wrote about the “dramatic shifts” in perception that undoubtedly affect the reported evaluation results.
As a fitting end to the discussion, David compared formative and summative evaluation and how they can be used in a virtuous cycle. From Dave’s reply, Thiagi and Markle’s paper, and my personal belief, formative and summative evaluations are distinct in concept but related, if not overlapping in practice. This fluidity resonates with the current implementation of Formative Evaluation: the combination of science and art, and the focus on continually asking questions more than getting defensible answers.
The questions were generally divided into those specific to our EdWeb projects and general queries regarding Formative Evaluation. Edweb-specific questions dealt heavily on how to assess the effectiveness of our navigation systems. Since most of us in class are new at constructing our own instructional websites, there is a concern that what may work for us may not work for our target audience. Similarly, the appropriate writing style was asked to which Dr. Tessmer replied that conversational is best, citing the practice used by screenplay writers.
Richard brought up a very interesting point relating content and navigation. He wrote that the amount of content and what the instructor wants to do with it affects how a learner should be able to navigate the website. I think that this emphasizes the need to clear about our objectives. A website can serve many purposes haphazardly, but what we want is for it to serve our intended purpose successfully.
My contribution opened up the Formative Evaluation discussion in general. Based on my work, it appears that it can be used selectively to support the agenda of various stakeholders. Items can be highlighted or downplayed as the “reporter” sees fit. With no clear, strict universal rules governing its implementation, the “art” wins over the science. David seconded this line of thought when he wrote about the “dramatic shifts” in perception that undoubtedly affect the reported evaluation results.
As a fitting end to the discussion, David compared formative and summative evaluation and how they can be used in a virtuous cycle. From Dave’s reply, Thiagi and Markle’s paper, and my personal belief, formative and summative evaluations are distinct in concept but related, if not overlapping in practice. This fluidity resonates with the current implementation of Formative Evaluation: the combination of science and art, and the focus on continually asking questions more than getting defensible answers.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Bender's Recipe for Online Facilitation
The week’s discussion was anchored on Tisha Bender’s book “Discussion-Based Online Teaching.” With continued emphasis on improving our WebCon and EdWeb preparations we were asked to reflect on what changes we anticipate adopting in our online facilitation. I thought this was a good learning exercise. The Web Con was intense; I was just glad to have it over with that I missed out on digesting what went on during the conference.
I started off the discussion thread with my thoughts on “Silence online.” This is a topic very important to me because the nature of the online environment can drive a wedge in the learning process if these silences are not addressed. As a facilitator, I found this to be one of the most unsettling experiences: trying to balance jumping in to lessen the uncertainty while leaving enough room to allow gestation of individual perspectives. Based on this and the interesting exchanges that ensued, I thought that this was my best contribution for the week.
Several people in class provided insights that expanded the dimension of silence online. Some of the ideas include:
Timing: The possibility of fielding a question when the participants are overwhelmed with other tasks, thus, reducing their capability to do more.
Uncertain Closure: The discussion may be dragging on for too long. The learners may assume that the exchanges will wrap up soon and will not be worth the time to jump in.
The Question itself: The phrasing of the question may be too vague, or too narrow; its purpose may also not be clear.
All of the above create ambiguities in an environment that already offers more of this than its face-to-face counterpart. There seems to be agreement that these affect learners’ interest and motivation which could lead to the silence.
Chad’s insightful question regarding action plans for a facilitator’s unanswered question generated several responses. Citing an online source, Kerry provided strategies to help avoid this incident. These include 1) clarifying objectives, 2) asking opinions on a controversial topic, and 3) asking questions that will require learners to analyze the subject matter (as opposed to having obvious answers).
David’s suggested strategies included applying the Keller’s ARCS model (Attention, Relevance, Confidence & Satisfaction) in online discussions, as well as managing expectations through the introduction of more structure. Both of these mitigate the uncertain environment and related motivational aspects stated earlier.
I started off the discussion thread with my thoughts on “Silence online.” This is a topic very important to me because the nature of the online environment can drive a wedge in the learning process if these silences are not addressed. As a facilitator, I found this to be one of the most unsettling experiences: trying to balance jumping in to lessen the uncertainty while leaving enough room to allow gestation of individual perspectives. Based on this and the interesting exchanges that ensued, I thought that this was my best contribution for the week.
Several people in class provided insights that expanded the dimension of silence online. Some of the ideas include:
Timing: The possibility of fielding a question when the participants are overwhelmed with other tasks, thus, reducing their capability to do more.
Uncertain Closure: The discussion may be dragging on for too long. The learners may assume that the exchanges will wrap up soon and will not be worth the time to jump in.
The Question itself: The phrasing of the question may be too vague, or too narrow; its purpose may also not be clear.
All of the above create ambiguities in an environment that already offers more of this than its face-to-face counterpart. There seems to be agreement that these affect learners’ interest and motivation which could lead to the silence.
Chad’s insightful question regarding action plans for a facilitator’s unanswered question generated several responses. Citing an online source, Kerry provided strategies to help avoid this incident. These include 1) clarifying objectives, 2) asking opinions on a controversial topic, and 3) asking questions that will require learners to analyze the subject matter (as opposed to having obvious answers).
David’s suggested strategies included applying the Keller’s ARCS model (Attention, Relevance, Confidence & Satisfaction) in online discussions, as well as managing expectations through the introduction of more structure. Both of these mitigate the uncertain environment and related motivational aspects stated earlier.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Planning for the Web Conference
IT5670 started where IT5660 left off. Teams discussed the results of the formative evaluation obtained during the EdWeb trial run. The objective was to generate key questions and response choices that would shape the conduct of the actual EdWeb to be held in February. True to the constructivist slant of the program, the class was divided into 3 teams all tasked to discuss, negotiate, persuade and filter ideas until the questions and corresponding response options were formulated.
Stephanie was instrumental in starting off the discussion and putting order into it. I thought that my best contribution was including a question on the evaluation process. With the lackluster responses we obtained which was replicated in several teams, I suggested exploring the option of a centralized evaluation (as opposed to individual session evaluations located within the confines of each session shell). I think the process of capturing information is as important as the question themselves.
A significant part of the exchanges centered on the areas of conference duration and session content. Some of us expressed preference for a one week schedule and create a more focused conference friendly to the facilitators’ workload. Others preferred the two week format to provide a longer opportunity for learning. These questions were, however, contextualized by the other question pertaining to session content.
Sheri introduced the idea of combining sessions. The more popular couplings were Serious Games and eLearning Simulations, Synchronous Tools and Blended Learning, and Interactivity & Interaction and Engaging Learners. As a member of the Blended Learning team which has unfortunately dwindled in number (from 4 to 2), I am all for the merging of our team with Synchronous Tools. An increased session coverage will favor a longer conference duration.
After crafting the survey based on the teams’ outputs, the overwhelming responses gave clear directions on: Combining Serious Games and Simulations, not requiring participation in other teams’ sessions; the Web Conference should not emulate face-to-face formats, and adherence to the session format of presentations and discussions.
Stephanie was instrumental in starting off the discussion and putting order into it. I thought that my best contribution was including a question on the evaluation process. With the lackluster responses we obtained which was replicated in several teams, I suggested exploring the option of a centralized evaluation (as opposed to individual session evaluations located within the confines of each session shell). I think the process of capturing information is as important as the question themselves.
A significant part of the exchanges centered on the areas of conference duration and session content. Some of us expressed preference for a one week schedule and create a more focused conference friendly to the facilitators’ workload. Others preferred the two week format to provide a longer opportunity for learning. These questions were, however, contextualized by the other question pertaining to session content.
Sheri introduced the idea of combining sessions. The more popular couplings were Serious Games and eLearning Simulations, Synchronous Tools and Blended Learning, and Interactivity & Interaction and Engaging Learners. As a member of the Blended Learning team which has unfortunately dwindled in number (from 4 to 2), I am all for the merging of our team with Synchronous Tools. An increased session coverage will favor a longer conference duration.
After crafting the survey based on the teams’ outputs, the overwhelming responses gave clear directions on: Combining Serious Games and Simulations, not requiring participation in other teams’ sessions; the Web Conference should not emulate face-to-face formats, and adherence to the session format of presentations and discussions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
