Peer Review of DBR Proposal The structure of this peer review was organised so that an outline of the proposal would be provided for initial feedback; this feedback would then inform the more detailed proposal. The second stage involved a summarised version of the full proposal for peer review within my place of employment. A fellow student – Adam – posted a summary of his DBR proposal on his Blog, prompting me to follow his lead. I thought this was the perfect catalyst for seeking peer review, as feedback could be gained before the work of real research began. I summarised my own ideas, using the same framework as Adam, and I was very satisfied with the response. Davis and Brigitte both gave me some thoughtful and generous feedback. David’s feedback identified a number of areas that required development. First of all, David pointed out that I hadn’t paid due attention to one of the major requirements of the assignment – to incorporate the appropriate design principles in the proposal, and to refer to the DBR template to clarify the problem more precisely. Secondly, the potential lack of resources was acknowledged, but some possible research direction was provided. Thirdly, the need to determine the flavour of NGL that would contribute and underpin the proposal was emphasised as another element missing from my outline. Lastly, there was a caution against using the term “digital native”, as it was a concept that overgeneralises a cohort. I agreed with this last point in particular because the connotations of this term were not particularly relevant to my workplace context. Brigitte reinforced this feedback by suggesting that my proposal appeared to focus more on the solution, rather than the problem or purpose. Brigitte’s feedback also provided some personal context, with descriptions of similar situations in her workplace. This I found very valuable as Brigitte also works in Higher Education, and is an instructional designer. She mentioned that her workplace was using Bots, Q & A systems, Chat services and FAQs. Adam – another NGL student- piped in with another relevant example from the workplace, which involved staff documented solutions in a private wiki; Adam suggested that this concept could be applied to students. The feedback from David, Brigitte and Adam was invaluable for me in the early stages as it provided the focus that I needed to begin researching valid sources and helped to really define the problem I was tackling, so that the implementation would be linked more appropriately. I really feel that without this guidance, I would have struggled to find direction with the literature review. The comments also gave me some very practical examples of how other institutions were confronting these issues. The second stage of the peer review involved gathering feedback from work colleagues. After I had put together a complete rough draft, I summarised the whole proposal and put in it into a Google Doc. I then invited co-workers by email to comment on it. Unfortunately, I had a disappointing response. I’m not sure whether it was because it was shared to Googledocs. Not many people I work with like using Googledocs. Not sure why. It was only when I attached the proposal to an email and approached two members of staff directly, that I was able to elicit feedback. The feedback was limited, probably because of the time factor. I had left this stage a little late- two weeks before the submission date. One staff member - Karin - agreed with the basic premise of the intervention, which was that scaffolded inquiry-based learning is of great benefit in reducing ALC-type staff requirements, but raised the issue that there also needs to be a paradigm shift in student expectations. As Karin points out: Scaffolding automatically slows their progress whilst they develop the requisite skills, so we need to consider how we advertise these offerings to students in order to make them accepting of the time lag or else we may face ‘bad press’ from disgruntled students (Stokes, 2016). Figure 1: Email feedback Source: (Stokes, 2016) The other staff member that provided feedback – Danielle - commented on the practicalities of implementing this intervention, in that advisers would need to determine the type of resources and training required from an organisational point of view. Danielle picked up on the multiple voices concept of the secondary intervention, suggesting that: " the learner could identify one or two learning outcomes they have achieved as a result of this information and provide feedback on how they have implemented that learning i.e. a tick box of several learning outcomes and then a quick line on how they have used that skill with a simple example for the students” (Clarke, 2016).
I found that the feedback from my peers helped a great deal to pinpoint exactly what the problem was and the direction of the research; and this assisted me in designing the intervention. There were two distinct focuses in the feedback. The feedback from my course provided a deeper, more analytical peer review that I found more rewarding from an intellectual point of view; whereas the feedback from work colleagues came from an organisational point of view, which in some ways reinforced the conservative approach to network learning referred to in the literature.
0 Comments
Introduction
The new learning environment has been unequivocally changed forever by technological advancement and the proliferation of knowledge on the Internet. Along with this change, comes the responsibility to provide learners with the opportunity to either acquire the necessary skills to operate in the new environment, or at least improve on existing skills. These skills include the ability to search, navigate, identify and critically select sources from a network of locations – often found online. These abilities, along with the ability to interact, collaborate and share within these networks, form the basis of Networked Global Learning (NGL), characterised by emerging theories, such as Connectivism (Downes, 2011; Siemens, 2005) and Public Click Pedagogy (PCP) (Bigum & Rowan, 2013). NGL occurs when information technology is used to promote and facilitate the interconnections between learners, instructors, experts, the community and other learning resources, with the aim to unlock the knowledge that exists in those networks (Siemens, 2005). It is further characterised by the development of Personal Learning Environments (PLEs), which are developed to assist learners take control of their learning, and to continue this control outside their learning environment (Downes, 2010; Siemens, 2007) However, it could be argued that teaching practices in the Higher Education (HE) sector have been slow to support this type of learning. Practices continue to follow a teacher-centred model, with teachers (knowledge keepers), imparting knowledge to students (receivers of knowledge)(Siemens, 2008). To equip students with the means to learn effectively in the new environment, NGL principles need to be integrated into the learning process. Therefore, instructors should design learning experiences that demonstrate and model the relevant skills, so learners are ultimately able to use these skills independently to achieve learning autonomy. This approach can be integrated into the most fundamental of activities – in this case, one of the most traditional and popular tools- email. For quick, direct communication, it remains one of the most effective means of communication between learners and their instructors (Chang, Hurst & McLean, 2015; Lightfoot, 2009; Zhao, Alexander, Perreault, Waldman, & Truell, 2009). The medium is popular for exchanging information in a direct and specific way, particularly when learners ask questions and instructors answer in personalised form (Lightfoot, 2009). In saying that, email has its limitations as a network learning tool because the communication is one-to-one or one-to-many, rather than many-to-many. Networked learning depends largely on technology that encourages collaboration and sharing in many-to-many mode (Dron & Anderson, 2016). However, email can be useful as a tool to model NGL skills, by using a personalised approach that can direct learners to sources in a structured way that reveals the process of navigating a “messy” network to discover the answers. This approach also has implications for the future agency of the student and the sustainability of support services, such as the one that is the subject of this proposal. This proposal will explore how a service within one area of HE can be enhanced to include learning experiences, underpinned by NGL principles, which will enhance the students’ NGL skills, improve their ability to operate in the modern education environment, and develop their individual agency so it is transferable to other domains. The proposal will include a statement of problem, research questions, literature review, intended learning intervention and conclusion. Statement of Problem One of my workplace duties is to answer quick queries (email) about academic skills, assignment writing and referencing. The process is largely characterised by one-way communication, with some students over-using the service, seemingly dependent on the passive acceptance of information to satisfy their knowledge needs. Essentially though, this service is a learning support service; and the planned intervention should be informed by this aspect. Students often hold expectations that reliable answers are provided by educators, who mainly use a teacher-centred model of communication. In an environment where the proliferation of knowledge is abundant and unrelenting, educators no longer have the monopoly on knowledge (Siemens, 2008). Therefore as a consequence, and from a purely practical perspective, educators will need to relinquish this position. It has become virtually impossible to remain totally informed of all new or existing knowledge on any given area (Siemens, 2008). The focus needs to be on facilitating learning experiences that assist students to acquire skills to independently search, locate and select quality information to construct personal knowledge. Teacher-constructed responses need to do two things: 1) integrate the appropriate skills based on NGL principles, b) scaffold this learning to build confidence in the learner, so they will ultimately demonstrate self-efficacy during the inquiry process. Compounding the problem is the expectation that students come to HE already equipped with the NGL skills that they need. This is often an inaccurate assumption (Kirkwood, 2006; Newton & Ellis, 2009; Zhao, Alexander, Perreault, Waldman, & Truell, 2009). Even when students’ networking skills are well developed, their information literacy and critical thinking skills can sometimes be inadequate for the purpose (Kirkwood, 2006; Newton & Ellis, 2012; Zhao, Alexander, Perreault, Waldman & Truell, 2009). Furthermore, students are often used to the instant gratification of search tools such as Google and Yahoo Answers. Research questions
Literature Review The Internet has contributed to the proliferation of information that continues to grow in size and complexity (Barber, Donnelly, & Rizvi, 2014; Brown, 2015; Siemens, 2008). At the same time, accompanying technologies have grown, impacting significantly on most industries – particularly those involved in the transferal and sharing of information. The education environment and associated practices have been affected in a wide-ranging way, with some sectors reluctant to move from traditional models of learning to models that reflect current trends (Brown, 2015; Kop, 2012; Siemens, 2008). Siemens (2008) paints a positive picture for the future of universities, but only if they recognise the need to transform their traditional role to one that offers connections to information and experts, and acts as a critical, neutral place of knowledge discovery and creation. Higher Education, as a whole, has been somewhat slow to embrace the new paradigms that have accompanied the new technology. The implications of this slow change are significant for learners because the growth and pace of change have amplified the need for learners to acquire critical literacies to competently negotiate the education environment (Brown, 2015; Dunaway, 2011; Kop, 2012). Engaging in education now compels students to be self-directed and able to “make connections between ideas located throughout their personal learning networks, which are composed of numerous information resources and technologies” (Dunaway, 2011, p. 676). So, proficiency in critical capabilities, as well as knowledge of the Internet’s structure, is crucial for learners in today’s education landscape (Downes, 2011; Kop, 2012; McLoughlin & Lee, 2008; Ozan, 2013). However, many learners tend to lack the skills that they are often assumed to possess (Kirkwood, 2006; Newton & Ellis, 2012; Zhao, Alexander, Perreault, Waldman & Truell, 2009). At the very least, some learners need the assistance of knowledgeable others, who can help rationalise and make sense of the vast amount of resources available; therefore, learners often look for ways to filter the information and find channels that will provide accurate and meaningful answers (Kop, 2012). One way that learners (students) elicit an answer to a question is to directly ask instructors (teachers and lecturers). Hung, Wang, Yang, Chui & Yee (2005) reveal that one of the current issues instructors face is the large volume of questions from students, and the expectations students have that answers will be provided promptly. Question answering (QA) technology provides one solution because QA systems can answer questions automatically by utilising user-controlled collections of information, mediated by human beings (Alinaghi & Bahreininejad, 2011; Shah, Kitzie & Choi, 2014; Wen, Cuzzola, Brown & Kinshuk, 2012) However, use of these systems can be problematic for a number of reasons; one reason is that questions are often asked in natural language and are not always accurately matched to the stored information. Secondly, Connectivist advocates claim that knowledge is stored and manipulated by proprietary databases that limit access to information and provide search engines that rank search results (Dunaway, 2011); these conditions create bias by influencing the connections the learner makes. Brown (2015) suggests the future role of Higher Education and educators will be as knowledge configurators, specialists in evaluating, processing and packaging the content. This builds on the ideas of Snowden (2004), who suggested that the management of complex systems, such as knowledge systems, can be supported by the human capability of multi-ontology sense-making. Therefore, it would be logical for the role of the educator to shift towards one that facilitated and supported enquiry (questions), based on knowledge navigation, problem solving, mentoring and coaching (Brown, 2015). This new environment has also impacted the design of the spaces where educators and learners come together; the learning spaces (or ecologies) need to be designed differently (Siemens, 2008). One area affected is the mediums used for communication between educator and learner. Email is a communication medium that has been used in HE for decades, and is still one of the most popular and enduring forms of communication between educator and learner (Chang, Hurst & McLean, 2015; Lightfoot, 2009; Zhao, Alexander, Perreault, Walman & Truell, 2009) It is used as a means to answer student questions about issues ranging from administrative issues to learning concepts and course content (Lightfoot, 2009; Zhao, Alexander, Perreault, Walman & Truell, 2009). It can remain as an effective communication tool if it can be appropriately used in networked learning, and the relevant principles are incorporated. The advantage of this is that email is familiar, accessible technology that involves asynchronous communication (Chang, Hurst & McLean, 2015; Zhao, Alexander, Perreault, Walman & Truell, 2009). It can help communicate information in a direct and time sensitive way, using a scaffolded, inquiry-based learning approach, while still incorporating the NGL principles that align with this approach. These principles are supported by Public Click Pedagogy (PCP) (Bigum & Rowan, 2013) and Connectivism (Downes, 2011; Siemens, 2005). One area of HE that has explored this area of modelling answers to questions using Connectivist principles, is Library services. Dunaway (2011) uses Connectivism as a valuable framework for understanding the skills required to achieve information literacy because the principles of Connectivism link to many of these skills. A Connectivist approach to information literacy allows students’ personal learning networks to develop through library resources, which can be considered nodes in students’ learning networks (Dunaway, 2011). Kop and Hill (2008) suggest that instead of controlling a classroom, an instructor (teacher) now influences or shapes a network by demonstrating the skills needed to use library databases and open access resources. Learning theories can help librarians understand how students learn, and how to design instruction in ways that facilitate learning (Dunaway, 2011); therefore these theories should be transferable to similar support services. As mentioned, two learning theories that can help support NGL skill acquisition in HE are the NGL theories of Public Click Pedagogy (PCP) and Connectivism. PCP promotes the idea that because of the proliferation of information, “the transition from not knowing yet to knowing can be complex” (Bigum &Rowan, 2013, p. 5). The process of learning is acknowledged as “messy”, but by using appropriate tools and processes, the path to learning can be revealed publicly and cathartically. Learners observing the modeling of the process, can practice the same process themselves, and reflect on that process. Connectivist theory was generated by the fact that knowledge is prolific and fluid, so the need for learners to critically determine if information is important or not, is crucial (Siemens, 2005) The principles and assumptions of Connectivism include: knowledge and learning is characterised by differing views and is constantly updated; learning involves networks of knowledge; learning can be contained within non-human entities; the ability to find the knowledge through connections is more important than the knowledge itself, the development of a personal network to facilitate learning is desirable; learning is controlled by the learner (Siemens, 2005). McLoughlin and Lee (2008) discuss a cornerstone of Connectivism – the personalization of learning and the development of Personal Learning Environments (PLE), where learners choose and make decisions relating to their personal learning needs. Educators have a responsibility to provide scaffolded learning activities that give the learner the opportunity to acquire personalised skills to produce knowledge (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008). Scaffolding is a mechanism used to support learning and the acquisition of skills required for learning (McLoughlin, 2002). It involves the intervention by someone or something in the learning of someone else. The technique can include such interventions as: assisted modeling, element identification, modeling of desired behaviours, facilitation of think-aloud dialogue, invitations to contribute to process, coaching, task support, conceptual scaffolding with several alternatives provided, and procedural scaffolding suggesting various tools (McLoughlin, 2002; Ozan, 2013). Intervention Research has indicated that learners thrive on being given more control over their learning, but often it is wrongly assumed that learners will have the necessary skills to learn (Dexler, 2010). This is often the case in the NGL environment. Support services in institutions that operate in the NGL environment, have a responsibility to provide the opportunities for skill acquisition, along with actual knowledge acquisition. To facilitate this, and to become more independent and self-regulated students in the long term, scaffolded inquiry based-learning (McLoughlin, 2002; McLoughlin & Lee, 2008; Ozan, 2013) should be used to model NGL skills based on the theories of Connectivism and PCP (Downes, 2011; Siemens, 2007; Siemens, 2005). The Design Levels that will be used to organize the intervention will include: task organization level, tool level and process level (Lakkala, Muukkonen & Hakkarainen, 2005). Task organization level This intervention will modify an existing service to students accessing the Quick Query facility of the Academic Learning Centre at a regional university. Students will submit a query or question. An Academic Learning Adviser (ALA) sends a reply containing some specific information, alongside resources that demonstrate how that information can be located. Encouragement to use this pathway to locate information in the future will also be communicated. By integrating skill acquisition based on NGL principles alongside the content of the answers, students see skills demonstrated that can enable them to independently seek answers. This skill set supports curiosity and self–efficacy in learning. When students enter a second enquiry, an alert will indicate to the instructor that the student has used the service before. The instructor will be provided with a link to the student’s history to check whether the current query is of a similar nature to previous queries in terms of NGL process skills. The ALA can then choose to refer back to the previous response to reiterate the skill process suggested, and in addition, suggest additional resources related to the current query. Tool level The host tool will be email; however, the resources offered to the learner will include a variety of informal and formal sources that are available through a variety of media, applicable to a number of disciplines, and located throughout a global network (McLoughlin, 2002). Resources will include Web 2.0 tools that can be used in further knowledge searches. In the email response to the learner, hyperlinks will introduce resources such as text-based sources (formal and informal), in-house resources, web-based multimedia tools (podcasting, vodcasting, Skype, Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo, Slideshare), and social media (Facebook, PinInterest). The web tools provided will be compatible with the underlying principles of NGL and Connectivism, enabling students to independently search, locate, and construct knowledge; and then also use the suggested tools to participate, interact, collaborate and share within these networks and beyond (Siemens, 2005). Process Level The response to the learner’s question will be structured in a way that is supported by Public Click Pedagogy (PCP) (Bigum & Rowan, 2013). The response to the email will be structured so that the process of finding the answer is laid out and scaffolded in such a way that the student can repeat that process, practicing each step; the step is scaffolded in a way that builds on the previous step. In this way, the process that guides them through linked resources to discover part of the answer independently, actually enables and transforms the learner. This learner-centred approach allows the reader to repeat and practice until they are proficient in that skill and can apply it competently, then move to the next rung on the learning ladder (Bigum & Rowan, 2013). A secondary intervention The second stage of this intervention would involve a QA system that would retrieve similar data (previous answers) when the learner first submits the question. The learner would be provided with these responses, and asked if any of the previous answers are compatible with the learner’s query. The learner would then be given the option of selecting one of the retrieved answers or submitting the inquiry for an individual response from a member of staff. This bank of questions and answers aligns with another NGL concept - the voices of many (Dron & Anderson, 2016). In the context of this proposal though, this secondary intervention would need to be explored in a separate proposal. Conclusion The education landscape is an environment with vast amounts of knowledge contained within complex networks. The path through it can be messy, overwhelming, complex and interconnected. Progressive learning institutions view the skills needed to negotiate this path as major learning objectives. To fulfil these objectives, it is necessary to integrate skills, based on NGL principles, into student-teacher interactions so students can acquire the skills to support their independent learning practices. This proposal focuses on an approach that integrates these skills into a common process that exists in most Higher Education settings – email enquiry to a support service. It is proposed that the responses to students will be constructed using a scaffolded inquiry-based learning model, underpinned by the NGL principles of Connectivism and PCP. These NGL principles support the ideas of laying the inquiry/discovery process open to the student so that they not only receive knowledge from the response, but are provided with the pathway to follow for future inquiry. This process is applied and practised by the student until transformative learning takes place with the acquisition of skills that will develop a Personal Learning Environment to promote self-efficacy and independent learning. At the same time, educators need to adopt a learner-centred approach to teaching that equips students with the means to “know”, rather than imparting the knowledge to the student themselves. References Alinaghi, T., & Bahreininejad, A. (2011). A multi-agent question-answering system for e-learning and collaborative learning environment. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies. 9(2), 23- 39. Barber, M., Donnelly, K., & Rizvi, S. (2013). An avalanche is coming: Higher education and the revolution ahead. Paper published by the Public Policy Research. London, UK. http:/www.ippr.org/publications/an-avalanche-is-coming-higher-education-and -the-revolution-ahead Bigum, C., & Rowan, L. (2013). Ladders, Learning and Lessons from Charlie: exploring the potential of public click pedagogy (No.2). Retrieved from http://chrisbigum.com/downloads/LLL-PCP.pdf Brown, T. H. (2015). Exploring new learning paradigms in ODL: A reflection on Barber, Donnelly, and Rizvi (2013): “An avalanche is coming: higher education and the revolution ahead”. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 16(4), 227-235. Chang, C.W., Hurst, B., & McLean, A. (2015). You’ve got mail: Student preferences of instructor communication in online courses in an age of advancing technologies. Technology and Exchange, 8(1). 39-48. Downes, S. (2012). Knowledge, Learning and Community. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/post/57737 Downes, S. (2011). “Connectivism” and Connective Knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-downes/connectivism- and-connecti_b_804653.html Downes, S. (2010). Personal Learning Environments. [Transcript]. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/files/Personal%20Learning%20Environments.pdf Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 26(3), 369-385. Dron, J. & Anderson, T. (2016). Teaching Crowds. Retrieved from http://teachingcrowds.ca Dunaway, M. K. (2011). Connectivism: Learning theory and pedagogical practice for networked educational landscapes. Reference Services Review, 39(4), 675-685. Hung, J.C., Wang, C.S., Yang, C.Y., Chiu, M.S., & Yee, G. (2005). Applying Word Sense Disambiguation to Question Answering System for E-Learning. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications. Jin, X., Zhou, Z. Lee, M.K.O., & Cheung, C.M.K. (2013). Why users keep answering questions in online question answering communities: A theoretical and empirical investigation. International Journal of Information Management 33. 93– 104. Kirkwood, A. (2016). Getting networked learning in context: are on‐line students’ technical and information literacy skills adequate and appropriate?. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(2), 117-131. Kop, R. (2012). The Unexpected Connection: Serendipity and Human Mediation in Networked Learning. Technology & Society, 15(2), 2–11. Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 9(3). 1-13. Lakkala, M., Muukkonen, H., & Hakkarainen, K. (2016). Patterns of scaffolding in computer- mediated collaborative inquiry. Mentoring and Tutoring. 13(2), 281-300. doi:10.1080/13611260500107457 Lightfoot, J.M. (2009). Student communication preferences in a technology- enhanced learning environment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 36(1). 9-20. McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M.J. (2008). The three P’s of pedagogy for the networked society: personalisation, participate on, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher education. 20(1). 10-27. McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education. 23(2), 149-162 Newton, D., & Ellis, A. (2012). Understanding Australian first year university students’ experiences of teaching and learning technologies. International Journal of E- Learning. 11(3), 267-279. Ozan, O. (2013), Scaffolding in connectivist mobile learning environment.Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 14(2), 44-55. Siemens, G. (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. Retrieved from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/systemic_impact.htm Siemens, G. (2007). PLEs – I Acronym, therefore I exist. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2007/04/15/ples-i-acronym-therefore-i-exist/ Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning Theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm Shah, C., Kitzie, V., & Choi, E. (2014). Modalities, motivations, and materials – investigating traditional and social online Q&A services. Journal of Information Science. 40(5), 669– 687. doi:10.1177/0165551514534140 Snowden, D.J. (2004). Multi-ontology sense-making: a new simplicity in decision making. Management today, 20(100, 44-48. Retrieved from http://old.cognitive-edge.com/wp -content/uploads/2005/05/40-Multi-ontology-sense-makingv2-May05.pdf Wen, D., Cuzzola, J., Brown, L., & Dr. Kinshuk. (2012). Instructor-aided asynchronous question- answering system for online education and distance learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 13(5), 102-125. Zhao, J.J., Alexander, M.W., Perreault, H., Walman, L., & Truell, A.D. (2009). Faculty and student use of technologies, user productivity, and user preference in distance education. Journal of Education for Business. March/April. 206-212. Introduction
Statement of Purpose My teaching context
Research questions
Literature Review
Intervention
Conclusion
Thanks Adam - for getting the ball rolling -so to speak. I have been trying to sit down and write an outline for the last two weeks. We were meant to be spending the long weekend in Adelaide (Queen's Birthday in QLD); but with the bad weather, were encouraged to cancel by our Hotel. So, I now have the weekend at home to catch up on assignment 2. I would much rather be sipping wine in the Barossa! I hope both you and Brigitte were not affected terribly by the weather.
Your proposal is very interesting, and I think exploring this area has some far-reaching implications for the sustainability of education and English language teaching. Your proposal appears to look at how language acquisition can be enhanced by students using their newly acquired knowledge to connect with others for the purposes of practicing and constructing new knowledge. That is an idea that can not only assist the student in the language classroom, but could also assist the lone learner seeking to improve their language proficiency. There is potential to provide meaningful experiences for students who live on the other side of the world and have limited ability to access formal language classes. The thought has also crossed my mind that although we talk about this big connected, dynamic, collaborative, networked world of learning, it does appear that connectivity is restricted by variables such as language, socio-economic circumstances and internet access. Your idea may also provide the basis for more distributive learning, because it encourages individuals to explore outside their primary language groups. Brigitte's blog on Quality in Learning Design highlighted some key learnings for me. I think comparing Social Constructivist pedagogy and Connectivist pedagogy is like comparing apples and oranges. I prefer to see Connectivism as a learning strategy rather than a learning theory. I think Connectivism certainly involves different and unique activities performed by the learner; however, a theory like constructivism involves the cognitive skills that the learner demonstrates. I did have a look at the video on Creative Commons. I like the name "commons", because it conjured up an image of a community space - like an English common. Since, beginning this course, I have often asked myself: How do I know if I'm looking in the right place or I am following the most useful trail to the most valuable information? One issue of the future has to be the organisation of this vast reservoir of information. Perhaps places like Creative Commons can act as a lifebuoy for those navigating this ocean of information - somewhere to begin understanding the generally accepted knowledge on a topic, somewhere to launch in search of new knowledge, and finally, somewhere to return to, compare and consolidate information knowledge. As a student, participation in NGL has ultimately been useful for me, because similar to my “as a learner” experience, it enabled me to identify the frustrations and successes associated with completing formal study in this mode. I was also able to make sense of the experience by exploring the research generated by NGL. As a result, this parallel perspective will further inform my role as a teacher. The value of experiencing something first hand, and then applying it reflectively to your own practice, is empowering; and in this way, the course has been transformative - even though the journey has been a bumpy one. Our course numbers were small, and I think this placed some limitations on the course that may not have presented, if there had been more participants. Based on the assumption that effective NGL involves participation, interaction and sharing, a smaller number of students may translate to a smaller number of interactions, less opportunity to share, and therefore little chance to connect, collaborate and construct (Siemens, 2005; Downes, 2011). Of course, small numbers may not always be an issue. For instance, if the participants know each other or have mutual connections, the interaction can be productive from the beginning because a social presence already exists. I also think that if the networked experience is facilitated in a considered way by applying principles of social presence, the participants may engage earlier and produce more meaningful interactions (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison & Archer, 2001). I liken it to being a good host, who has invited a number of individuals to a party, and some of the guests don’t know each other. It is a social assumption that the host will act as a conduit, inclusively identifying and building links between the guests. The communication is at first exchanged through the host; until eventually the other links grow stronger, and people communicate directly, rather than through the host. The host can then extricate themselves from that cluster to engage with another group. The social aspect of NGL, or what Salmon (2003) calls online socialisation, was lacking in the course, apart from a sharing activity that seemed appeared quite abstract. Dron and Anderson (2016) in their exploration of clustering, suggest that when a number of people are brought together, it is valuable to define what kind of cluster they actually are, so as to determine the nature and purpose of that clustering. ‘Groups’ tend to be the most common cluster of people, and are held together by a particular task or goal, and operate within a formal hierarchy in a restricted mode. This is the category that our course cluster fell into from the beginning, and until recently, struggled to progress beyond. Most of the participants in this course did not know each other, were geographically dispersed, and working in very different education contexts, but could have been a network, as that structure assists in the connection of distributed knowledge (Dron & Anderson, 2016). Unfortunately connection and participation was limited, while students were deciding whether to continue beyond census. Course design needs to select technology to match the needs and expectations of the student (Kirkwood, 2006; Bower, 2015; Dron & Anderson, 2016). It was a requirement of the course to use a blog - the social software typical of a network. However, in the confines of this course, the pressure to use the social software of NGL was counterintuitive to the needs of the student. It is imperative to examine the purpose of the learning, and fit the software to the learning rather than the learning to the software (Kirkwood, 2006; Bower, 2015). Blogs support network learning well, but until a network exists, software designed for groups is preferable in the orientation stage of a course. Modelling should take place first to inform the participant before the practise phase. In a similar way, the course design also needs to ensure that the capability of the software is conducive to the learning outcomes. I appreciated the value of Diigo, but there were a number of issues related to this software: my application to be a part of the relevant group took two weeks to be accepted; I found the resources shared in Diigo were uninspiring; and the group (present and past) appeared to be inactive. I did find Feedly a very valuable resource for accessing activity in the course; however again, there were problems with blog posts feeding into Feedly, producing misleading reports on participation. Some links on the course blog proved to be dead-ends; and I’m slowly succumbing to death by scroll on the course Blog. These were all totally understandable glitches, but didn’t instil confidence in me that NGL could cope with an online course in the same way as a LMS can. Some students struggled with the actual technology, while others were ready to engage and interact. As mentioned in “As a Teacher”, Universal Design Learning (UDL) is applicable to NGL because the needs of the NGL participants are as diverse as in any classroom (Socal, 2008). The activities need to be designed to cater for all levels of ability, but at the same time, not inhibit the learning of others. In the EDU8117 context, there was little activity for the first few weeks; and unfortunately, this lack of participation, prevented some students from linking to other student’s blogs. I found this frustrating, but I did not see this as the fault of the other students. It is a downside of students participating in knowledge creation. If the knowledge creation is dependent on something they have to wait to be created, students are forced to find alternative ways to create this knowledge, particularly when this is part of assessment requirements. The initial increase in participation seemed to be partially motivated by the participation reports and assessment requirements. However, as mentioned in this post (Duarte, 2015), assessment is an acceptable means of sustaining NGL participation; so from this point of view, a small assessment task at the beginning of the course, may have encouraged learning earlier in the process. One important aspect that separates the reflections “as a learner” and “as a student” is formal assessment. NGL courses appear to over-assess, and this may result from two things: the tendency to overcompensate for the lack of direct teaching; and the complex nature of the environment in which the course operates. The need to include every aspect of the curriculum is a characteristic of Assignment 1 – Parts A and B. Unfortunately; I found the task so arduous that any transformative learning I may have experienced was masked. At the time that this post was written, our group was experiencing a limited transition into a networked community. This has certainly occurred as a result of increased interaction, culminating in a video-conference meeting that was student organised. As mentioned in this post, when students are motivated to seek face-to-face interaction outside of the online network, this should not be considered a failure of NGL, but rather students, who are independent learners, using a different strategy to seek knowledge (Bell & Parchoma, 2010). To sum up, NGL will have a powerful influence on the future of education, and will significantly affect my approach to teaching in the future. What I have concluded through my role as a student, is that it is crucial for students to acquire the skills to navigate through a complex maze of information. Students will particularly value clarity of communication and the opportunity to equip themselves with the capability to seek and discover through transformative learning in this challenging environment. References
Bell, A., Zenios, M., & Parchoma, G. (2010). Undergraduate experiences of coping with networked learning: Difficulties now, possibilities for the future. In L. Dirckinck‐ Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010. (pp. 904–911). Bower, M. (2015). A Typology of Web 2.0 Learning Technologies. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2015/2/a-typology-of-web-20- learning-technologies CoI. (2016). Description: Social presence. Retrieved from https://coi.athabascau.ca/coi-model/description-social-presence/ Diigo. (2016). My groups: Networked and Global Learning. Retrieved from https://groups.diigo.com/group/networked-and-global-learning Downes, S. (2011). “Connectivism” and Connective Knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-downes/connectivism-and- connecti_b_804653.html Dron, J. & Anderson, T. (2016). A typology of social forms for learning. In Teaching Crowds. Retrieved from http://teachingcrowds.ca/ discuss-the-chapters/chapter-3-a-typology-of-social-forms-for-learning Duarte, P. (2015). The use of a group blog to actively support learning activities. Active Learning in Higher Education 16(2) 103–117. Feedly. (2016). EDU8117 - 2016 Semester 2. Retrieved from https://feedly.com/i/category/EDU8117%20-%202016%20Semester%202 Jenner, M. (2013) Scroll of death vs Scroll of depth. Retrieved from https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/digital-education/2013/10/10/ scroll-of-death-vs-scroll-of-depth/ Kirkwood, A. (2016). Getting networked learning in context: are on‐line students’ technical and information literacy skills adequate and appropriate?. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(2), 117-131. Nat8117. (2016a). How NGL has informed my role as a Teacher. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://nat8117.weebly.com/teacher Nat8117. (2016b). How could the course be improved? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://nat8117.weebly.com/student/how-could-the-course-be- improved Nat8117. (2016c). Response to valuing the residue of experience a bit more.[Blog post]. Retrieved from http://nat8117.weebly.com/student/response-to- valuing-the-residue-of-experience-a-bit-more Nat8117. (2016d). Meeting in appear.in. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://nat8117.weebly.com/student/meeting-in-appearin Nat8117. (2016e). Response to Week 1 reading. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://nat8117.weebly.com/learner/as-a-learner Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing Social Presence In Asynchronous Text-based Computer Conferencing Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'enseignement à distance. Retrieved from http://auspace.athabascau.ca:8080/bitstream/2149/732/1/Assessing%20 Social %20Presence%20In%20Asynchronous%20Text- based%20Computer%20Conferencing.pdf Salmon, G. (2003). The Five Stage Model. Retrieved from http://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html Socal, I. D. (2008). Considering universal design. Retrieved from http://speedchange.blogspot.com.au/2008/04/considering-universal- design.html I'm feeling much more productive today, after the meeting last night. Thanks Brigitte, Miranda and Angela. I got so much out of the time spent chatting; it really reinforced the value of face-to-face interaction. I remember in one of our early readings (Bell, Zenios & Parchoma, 2010), it said that some students who are engaged in digital network learning, will still seek out face-to-face interaction. The authors reiterated that this was not a failure of network learning, but simply an alternative strategy that a student will use to seek out knowledge. I'm sorry that Melissa and Adam couldn't join us, but hopefully next time we can arrange a time that is fits in with everyones' schedules. Again, thanks for the chat; I certainly went away with a clearer vision of what is required for Assignment 1 and more direction in relation to Assignment 2. Best of luck for finishing the assignment this week. Don't forget to celebrate on the weekend! References Bell, A., Zenios, M., & Parchoma, G. (2010). Undergraduate experiences of coping with networked learning: Difficulties now, possibilities for the future. In L. Dirckinck‐ Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010 (pp. 904–911).
Re-reading some of the older posts from this Term, I came across a blog post by David. I have often missed David's posts, as they don't come up in my Feedly feed like student posts do. I have to deliberately go into David's posts by clicking on his name in the blog list. It was interesting to reflect on this post as it was written in early August. Since then, even more students have withdrawn from EDU8117, leaving just 5 of us in the 2016 class. So, in view of the statement below, there are some obvious reasons why students in the 2016 class have questioned why they have missed out on marks for links to student blogs from previous semesters. With fewer participants, there is a good chance that the interaction traffic is slower, so students this year may have felt compelled to look at previous year's blogs for stimulus. In 2014, there were 17 active students in the course; in 2015, there were 10 participants. As mentioned above, there are 5 in 2016. It would be a shame to see this course disappear, as it has so much meaning for the future of teaching and learning. Interestingly, this has only become an issue this year. Only this year have students been asking why they missed out on marks for links to other (“old”) student posts. Leaving aside why it’s only started this year, this post documents the move to valuing the residue of experience. I think students will always prefer to interact with other students in the "here and now", whether it be online or face-to-face. Interacting with a post, where there is little chance of a response, has limited appeal. It has a somewhat "creepy" feel; but I can understand how in the absence of course participation and interaction, "residual experience" provides a substitute. Therefore, these older links should be considered in the same way as an interaction with a current student's post. References Valuing the residue of experience a bit more. (2016). The Weblog of (a) David Jones. Retrieved from https://davidtjones.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/valuing-the- residue-of-experience-a-bit-more/ Hi Brigitte, Miranda, Adam, Angela I'm wondering if anyone would like to get together during the week to discuss the up coming assignment. I know it would be difficult for you Adam, with the difference in time zones. I have come across a very easy video-conferencing tool called appear.in. It looks quite simple to use and doesn't require any login. References Appear.in. (2016) Create a room and invite up to eight people. Retrieved from https://appear.in/ This week I have been roughly planning my three formal posts for Part B, Assignment 1; and feeling like I wanted to discuss my responses with other students. Then, I read Miranda's "Pros and cons of online education", and realised that possibly everyone was feeling this way. Miranda posed some very relevant questions- one of which was: I wonder if people will always seek to meet when enrolled in massive online courses? My initial response was "yes", people will naturally want to meet face-to-face - or at least - utilise a similar medium for this purpose (E.G. Collaborate, Zoom). But, was this really the case? Do all students feel the need to connect face-to-face? I have found this course somewhat chaotic, with many concepts and theories presented in a non-intuitive order (from my perspective only). I have completed other courses, where I haven't had trouble following the learning; and in these courses, I haven't felt a strong need to connect face-to-face. Perhaps one of the learnings of this course is that students need to develop the skill to articulate their thoughts and interact more directly through the written word, because interacting face-to-face may not always be an option. This raises the question of how students with different learning styles/preferences cope with networked learning. I imagine that students with a strong read/write learning preference would be comfortable in the networked learning environment; however, if this style of learning is the future, every student will need to develop the skills to take part. Otherwise, they may limit their opportunity to learn. In my last course, I chose to concentrate on examining how students with different learning styles/preferences can adapt to the online environment. The VARK Model, chosen because of it popularity in the Higher Education sector, has four learning styles (Fleming,1995): Visual (V) - prefers to absorb information in graphic form (diagrams, charts, images). They also use colour and layout to understand and learn. Auditory (A) - prefers to have things explained verbally, rather than read and explore things by themselves Read/Write (R) - prefers to absorb knowledge by reading about it and making notes, lists and reflections. Kinesthetic (K) - prefers to actively “do” things to learn. They enjoy practical learning activities (group work, role play, discussion, debate). * Multimodal (MM) - possess a strong preference for two or more of the four learning styles By understanding the influence of learning styles/preferences you can: - adapt your learning style to match the course activities - modify the learning activities to match your style. Ideally, learners need to be aware of other learning styles/preferences so as to develop a mixed method approach. This approach can help learners to adapt to different learning experiences and increase participation levels (Bhagat, Vyas, & Singh, 2015). I think our group is attempting to do this - adapt to the learning environment. Each week, the posts reveal a little more about the participants; and the sharing of similar experiences by participants is beginning to build a sense of connection. What do you all think? References Bhagat, A., Vyas, R., & Singh, T. (2015). Students awareness of learning styles and their perceptions to a mixed method approach for learning. International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research, 5(suppl 1), 58-65. doi:10.4103/2229- 516x.162281 Fleming, N.D. (1995). I'm different, not dumb. Modes of presentation(VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA). 18, 308- 313. Pros and cons of online education. (2016). Global Education Matters. Retrieved from http://www.globaledmatters.com/pros-and-cons-of-online-education/ VARK. (2016). The VARK Questionnaire. Retrieved from http://vark-learn.com/the-vark-questionnaire/ Click on this link to take the quiz (Vark Learning, 2016): |