Month: November 2020

Throughout the past four topics, I have journeyed from personal digital identity to online community in the context of education. As I was journeying from one topic to another, a few questions came to mind and now I have a chance to formulate them. I particularly put a lot of thoughts on these questions:

Does one need to have a good digital presence before participating in online learning communities? For instance, do I need to have a good digital identity (Beetham & Sharpe, 2010) before joining an online community? Must I first know how to twitter, blog, do online sketch and so on? Is having an email account not sufficient?

The background to those questions is that there are a lot of online tools available and a lot more are sprouting soon. Our students will use tools that we have not even heard today. The effort of mastering these soon-to-be-available tools is significant. First, one needs to be aware of these tools (which, again, may not even exist now). Two, one then needs to learn how to use them. Third, one then needs to design how to use these tools in the context of learning. Instructors must strategise.

After looking at various frameworks like the 5-stage model (Salmon, n.d.) and the Community of Inquiry (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000; Rienties & Rivers, 2014), I analogise* tools to online learning as languages are to communication. Knowing more tools are certainly more beneficial than knowing fewer tools; just as knowing more languages will make one better in outreaching to more listeners. However, a language is not the same as communication; the ability to speak many languages is not an indication of the ability to communicate. Likewise, the ability to use many online tools does not necessarily indicate good design of online learning. It is imperative to know at least a tool to design a meaningful online learning, but it is more imperative to apply well-tested frameworks of online learning to really help students to have a meaningful online learning experience.

As I shared in my Topic 4 Blog, I plan to make a conscious effort to scaffold the Emotional Presence of students in my modules, especially now that online avenues are used very extensively. This is one “presence” that I just came to know through ONL and has a lot of potential for improvement. The other “presence” that I plan to help my students is the Social Presence by addressing the long-standing issue of participation asymmetry (Capdeferro & Romero, 2012).

I think these are two steps that I can try out soon and hope to measure its impact.

*I shared this analogy in one of PBL10 group meetings. Thanks to my group mates for their inspiration.

References:

Beetham, & Sharpe. (2010). Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20141011224212/http:/jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/46740204/Digital%20literacy%20framework

Salmon, G. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html

Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a Text-based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 88.

Rienties, B., & Rivers, B. (2014). Measuring and Understanding Learner Emotions: Evidence and Prospects. Learning Analytics Community Exchange.

Capdeferro, N., & Romero, N. (2012). Are Online Learners Frustrated with Collaborative Learning Experiences? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 26-44.

Although I have heard about blended learning (Cleveland-Innes & Wilton, 2018) for some years now, I have not been enthusiastic in applying it. To be clear, I value the benefit of using online platform to enhance learning. I have been practicing it, too. I have put my teaching materials online, I have posted the learning schedule of my modules online, and I consciously make connection between the information that I put online and the teaching delivery that I conduct face-to-face. Having said all this, I am also mindful (and ponder) that shifting teaching materials into an online platform may not automatically earn me a badge in blended learning.

Following ONL webinar and discussions on “Design for Online and Blended Learning”, I came to know the 5-stage model for online learning to be successful (Salmon, n.d.). This has not only validated my earlier thinking that blended learning is much more than going online but has also provided me with a framework and realisation that there is a lot more for me to do if I am to design my modules in a blended learning approach.

Reflecting on how I have started my module preparation using online platform and referencing to the 5-stage model, I have spent a lot of effort in “Access” but not on “Motivation”. The module preparation in the 5-stage model, which is Stage 1 “Access and Motivation”, has called for interaction with students by welcoming and encouraging them. The motivating part, where instructors facilitate the creation of emotional presence in learners, is something that I have mostly left to the students and facilitated by checking how students are rather than actively encouraging them.

The presence of emotion in learning has been discussed in the Community of Inquiry framework, too, which I recently came across (Rienties & Rivers, 2014). Emotional Presence is in addition to the Social, Teaching and Cognitive Presence that have been established in the earlier model (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000).

Moving forward, I am studying this research-based model and look at enlarging the support that I can give to students in terms of Emotional Presence. I am balancing the need to support students and to let them be independent learners. This is not any more different than how instructors have traditionally been supporting students, but I suppose require more deliberate effort especially if instructors are not trained in providing one.

There is a difference between blended learning and emergency remote teaching (Hodges, Moore, Lockee, Trust, & Bond, 2020). Providing Emotional Presence may well be one of the key differences between the two.

References:

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. (2020). The Difference between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning.

Cleveland-Innes, M., & Wilton, D. (2018). Guide to Blended Learning. Burnaby, British Columbia: Commonwealth of Learning.

Salmon, G. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html

Rienties, B., & Rivers, B. (2014). Measuring and Understanding Learner Emotions: Evidence and Prospects. Learning Analytics Community Exchange.

Garrison, D., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a Text-based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education. The Internet and Higher Education, 88.

I recently saw a documentary “A Life on Our Planet” narrated by David Attenborough (Hughes, Scholey, & Fothergill, 2020). In it, he put forth a notion that unlike other flora and fauna, humans do not need physical change in their bodies to create changes to the world around them. Humans can do that, but humans can also impart knowledge from one to the next generation so that the next generation can tame the world using the learning of the previous generation.

To me, this is an apt description of the role of education in human’s survival. It also brings out the notion of learning as a community endeavour; for a generation is a community. It is as if the nature and our ancestors are telling us to learn as a community.

At the same time, I am mindful of negative characterisation of learning in a team. There have been times when students, often in confidence, vent their frustration at team members. To be clear, there are students who praise each other in a team. However, one cannot dismiss that there are also dysfunctional teams in learning, which feels unnatural considering the evolutionary description of learning as a community.

The findings of Capdeferro and Romero (2012) qualify and quantify this negative characterisation. In that study, various sources of students’ frustration were investigated. It boils down to one thing: participation asymmetry. Do other team members take more than they share? Do I put in too much effort while other team members do not? It is not unique to learning and certainly not unique to online experience. For me, this phenomenon is another attestation of “The Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin, 1968).

However, after following reading and discussions on the topic of Learning in Communities in ONL, I revisit this topic and now consider whether that was the only explanation, especially in the context of learning. I now come to think that it is important to understand the level of connection that student wants to operate. The four stages outlined by Siemens (2002) (communication, collaboration, cooperation and community) help to situate where students may want to position themselves in team learning.

It is possible that one student in a team aims for collaboration while the other team member aims for community, hence creating perceived participation asymmetry. This may be more pronounced when learning is assessed. I am quite intrigued if there are studies that examine the issue of learning in communities compounded with assessment. I think that will be very relevant to university.

References:

Hughes, J., Scholey, K., & Fothergill, A. (Directors). (2020). David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet [Motion Picture].

Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are Online Learners Frustrated with Collaborative Learning Experiences? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 26-44.

Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 62(3859), 1243-1248.

Siemens, G. (2002, October 8). Interaction. E-Learning Course. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/Interaction.htm