Group items tagged

onole, Dyke, Oliver and Seale (2004), have proposed a toolkit and model for mapping pedagogyand tools for effective learning design. They say "Toolkits are model-based resources that offer away of structuring users’ engagement that encourages reflection on theoretical concerns as well assupporting the development of practical plans for action (Conole & Oliver, 2002). The models thatform the heart of each toolkit consist of representations of a ‘space’, described in terms of qualities,in which theories or approaches can be described." They emphasise that "the descriptions of these

    Pedagogic Approaches to Using Technology for Learning - Literature Review 23 approaches reflect the beliefs of describer. These models are thus best understood as sharablerepresentations of beliefs and of practice, rather than as definitive account of the area" (p.18).The framework they propose consists of the following six components (p.22-23):  “Individual – Where the individual is the focus of learning.  Social – learning is explained through interaction with others (such as a tutor or fellowstudents), through discourse and collaboration and the wider social context within which thelearning takes place.  Reflection – Where conscious reflection on experience is the basis by which experience istransformed into learning.  Non-reflection – Where learning is explained with reference to processes such asconditioning, preconscious learning, skills learning and memorisation (Holford, Jarvis, &Griffin, 1998).  Information – Where an external body of information such as text, artefacts and bodies of knowledge form the basis of experience and the raw material for learning.  Experience – Where learning arises through direct experience, activity and practicalapplication

ormier proposes a ‘rhizomatic model’ of learning in which “a community can construct a model of education flexible enough for the way knowledge develops and changes today by producing a mapof contextual knowledge” (p.4). In this model, “curriculum is not driven by predefined inputs fromexperts; it is constructed and negotiated in real time by the contributions of those engaged in the

   Left hand side page by Lifelong Learning UK 24   24 learning process. This community acts as the curriculum, spontaneously shaping, constructing, andreconstructing itself and the subject of its learning…” (p.3).

‘disruptive’ innovation, where a new technology results in sweeping away old ways of doing something.

Thus knowledge management becomes more important than mere access to knowledge. If we look at xMOOCs though we have taken a new technology – video lecture capture and Internet transmission – and applied it to an outdated model of teaching. True innovation requires a change of process or method as well as a change of technology.

.Content is only one component of teaching (and an increasingly less important component); other components such as learner support and assessment are even more important. Care is needed then because changes in methods of online content development and delivery could have negative knock-on cost and productivity consequences in other areas of course delivery, such as learner support and assessment. I

Similarly, inadequate hardware and software, slow internet connections, learners’ procrastination, lack of technical expertise among the instructors, insufficient orientation for learners, and a lack of release time for instructors to develop and design their online courses have been cited as barriers to faculty participation in developing and teaching online courses (Nkonge & Gueldenzoph, 2006). The researchers recommended training and support for instructors. Supporting faculty becomes significant because of the number of faculty who begin the online teaching experience with little knowledge of the process of designing, developing, and instructing an online course (Cuellar, 2002).

Both novice faculty, who may have been reluctant to participate, and expert faculty play a significant role in guiding the types of support, assistance, and training provided by institutions of higher education. Rockwell et al., (1999) evaluated the types of education, assistance, and support that faculty felt were needed to be successful in online teaching and learning. Faculty responded with the assertions that assistance and support for developing instructional materials, developing interaction, and for applying certain technologies were critical to their success in online environments. Faculty regarded teaching online as more difficult than teaching traditional courses (Gerlich, 2005) as well as complain that online delivery were more labor intensive because of the amount of time required to grade papers and respond to questions (Lao, & Gonzales, 2005; Wegmann, & McCauley, 2008; Sellani & Harrington, 2002). In other studies, faculty felt that additional instructional and technical support were needed because faculty were genuinely concerned about the quality of their online courses and the amount of technical assistance and training available to them at their institutions (Allen & Seaman, 2008; Keengwe, Kidd, & Kyei-Blankson, 2009).

Surveys conducted by Brogden and Couros (2002), Grosse, (2004), and Lorenzetti, (2004) suggest that the time and effort demands to develop online courses and to learn new technologies are also causes for faculty member’s frustrations. Additionally, some faculty members may resist online teaching because they are concerned that those courses may require more time for advanced planning (Matsom, 2006). Further, faculty members may be hesitant about this shift due to the fact that they may lose autonomy and control of the curriculum, lack of technical training and support, and lack of release time for planning. Generally, understanding the differences between traditional face-to-face learning environment and online learning environment, and the process of being able to shift from one modality to the other, will give faculty members the ability to design better online courses and focus more on course delivery (Conrad, 2004; Harlow, 2007; Marfoglio, 2006, Sugar, Martindale, & Crawley, 2007). Faculty members may also need to rethink (a) the nature of the content to be taught (b) their role as faculty members and (c) the needs and requirements of the students (Ben-Jacob, Levin & Ben-Jacob, 2000; Lee & Busch, 2005; Jones, Kollof, & Kolloff, 2008).

Principle 4: Great online courses are defined by teaching, not technology.

Principle 5: Sense of community and social presence are essential to online excellence.

Principle 6: Excellence requires multiple areas of expertise.

Principle 7: A great web interface will not save a poor course; but a poor web interface will destroy a potentially great course.

Principle 8: Excellence comes from ongoing assessment and refinement.

Principle 9: Sometimes the little extras go a long way.