Group items tagged

it helps remove the filter.

Alex mentioned her desire not to allow students to unsubscribe from the posts.

Student learning ought to be at the heart of any pedagogical strategy or technique, regardless of whether the class is delivered online or in a more traditional classroom setting.

there is little doubt that online teaching and learning requires more time in both preparation and delivery; however, the point was previously made that this should not necessarily be the case. Good teaching in traditional classrooms, when done well, also requires a significant amount of time to prepare and deliver. We argue here that both teaching and learning would improve if many of the considerations inherent in the preparation and delivery of online learning were given priority in courses delivered in traditional classrooms.

It is hoped that the key issues addressed here will assist faculty in the preparation and delivery of their traditional courses. In summary, the benefits for traditional instruction in statistics through the use of online pedagogy are: 1) Improved ability to know what material is “essential” to the students’ understanding and learning. A focused delivery of traditional pedagogy minimizes student confusion and misunderstandings and leaves time for additional activities that can be used to enhance student learning. 2) Improved ability to logically and consistently organize and deliver course material. The use of weekly modules containing an overview that summarizes the lecture topic and objectives is helpful to both the instructor and the student in organizing course material 3) Improved willingness to seek out and complete training on how to teach in the traditional classroom. While some colleges and universities require training to teach online, few, if any, require training to teach in the classroom. Many colleges and universities provide both individual and group training to instructors who are new to teaching, and the experience of teaching online can enhance an instructor’s desire and ability to be a better teacher in the traditional classroom. 4) Improved ability to create multiple strategies for the submission of student work and clarification of misunderstandings. The experience of teaching online enables instructors to devise varied strategies for the submission of course work, and provides additional arenas for the instructor to clarify misunderstandings in a forum in which all students can participate. 5) Improved ability to use new technologies for the development and delivery of instruction. Knowing what tools are available for course development and delivery can broaden an instructor’s ability to prepare course materials and deliver them in creative, stimulating ways. 6) Improved ability to maintain the course schedule. 7) Improved ability to maintain contact with all students in the course. In traditional classrooms, students can sit quietly for weeks, engaging little, if at all, with the instructor, the material, or their peers. Teaching online exposes instructors to a wide variety of strategies for enhancing student engagement because they must participate. 8) Improved pedagogical versatility. Being proficient teaching in multiple venues increases one’s own instructional flexibility, and also increases the flexibility of a department to deliver instruction to students. 9) Improved student access to the course material during instructor absences. Having the course material created by the instructor available during the instructor’s absence facilitates student learning and helps maintain the course schedule. 10) Improved student learning due to the repetitive availability of course material, including practice problems and solutions. Once voice-over lectures have been created, they can be uploaded to Blackboard for use in any course.

When faculty actively interact and engage students in a face-to-face classroom, the class develops as a learning community, developing intellectual and personal bonds. The same type of bonding happens in an online setting.

So establishing teaching presence is what all the designers, Alex, and even I, am doing when we make decisions about the content of the course, the types of activities we want to include, the tools we would like to use, how we want to assess, how we provide channels for providing and managing feedback, how we want to induct students into the course, how we want to wrap up the course….Basically – everything!

From planning, to execution, to assessment, to revision. So this is why developing a course is an “iterative process”.

The first course carrying the name MOOC was offered in 2008, so this is new phenomenon. Second, the pedagogical style of the early courses, which we shall call cMOOCs, was based on a philosophy of connectivism and networking. This is quite distinct from the xMOOCs now being developed by elite US institutions that follow a more behaviourist approach. Third, the few academic studies of MOOCs are about the earlier offerings because there has been no time for systematic research on the crop of 2012 xMOOCs. Analysis of the latter has to be based on a large volume of press articles and blogs. Fourth, commentary on MOOCs includes thinly disguised promotional material by commercial interests (e.g. Koller, 2012) and articles by practitioners whose perspective is their own MOOC courses.

The term MOOC originated in Canada. Dave Cormier and Bryan Alexander coined the acronym to describe an open online course at the University of Manitoba designed by George Siemens and Stephen Downes. The course, Connectivism and Connective Knowledge, was presented to 25 fee-paying students on campus and 2,300 other students from the general public who took the online class free of charge (Wikipedia, 2012a).

Can xMOOCs make money?

Some have reported attrition from eLearning as high as 70 - 80% (Flood 2002, Forrester 2000, in Dagger & Wade, 2004). Parker (1999) argues that “With the growth of distance education has come the problem of exceedingly high attrition rates”. Citing Carter (1996), she suggests that eLearning student attrition in some institutions is exceeds 40%, while others (Frankola, 2001). Diaz (2002), put it at between 20 - 50%,  and Carr (2000), estimate it to be 10% - 20% higher than for traditional on-campus education.

Students are empowered to learn on their own and even to teach one another.

Students served as instructors to their classmates, and together they worked toward learning goals more effectively than if they had been provided with the answer by the instructor.

Student centered learning