Design for online and blended learning

A few weeks back, when I was asked to be a part of a teaching team which is responsible for designing and launching an online course, I was caught off guard. Even though the idea seemed interesting, I was not prepared for the task and doubted if I would make a reasonable contribution. Attending an online course where educators from different countries across disciplines did sound a good idea. Reflecting on the discussions I had within my PBL group and the ONL 181 forum, I have gotten rich information about online learning and how it works. More importantly, I have learned a lot about the motives, and drives of my fellow participants. Even though we share the ‘common goal’ learning something new, one cannot deny the fact that we all have come with different expectations and learning objectives in mind. This made me question if online learning is the right arrangement for me to achieve the specific goals I have.

Educators and other stakeholders, the media, and researchers acknowledge the influence of online learning particularly in higher educational settings. For instance, Garrison and Kanuka (2014) argue that online education has compelled educators to re-examine their existing assumptions on the teaching-learning practice. It is no surprise that considerable attention is given to the designing and provision of online learning given the proliferation of information and communication technologies. 

However, looking back to the three topics and going through the literature, I have noticed that no single learning method (face-to-face, or online) can be considered effective by its own. For instance, recent developments in the transformation of learning environments have raised the significance of introducing different approaches to teaching and learning. Here, I concur with Young (2002) for calling blended learning “the single greatest unrecognized trend in higher education today”. I recognize that a transformation in the learning environment can only be achieved when we combine the benefit of learning together and apart. As I mentioned in my last blog, studies have shown that online learning arrangements such as collaborative online learning bring a long list of challenges for learners and educators alike.  However, the increasing introduction of a combination of text-based asynchronous Internet-based learning with face-to-face approaches—also referred to as blended learning.

After spending some time reading about both online-, blended, and face-to-face learning, I found myself entangled with the long list of merits and shortcomings of these learning methods. In the end, I have come to notice that the benefit of each of the learning approaches come from how robust the design is in terms of helping students achieve their learning goals. I have to admit that I am leaning more towards the blended learning approach. 

For those interested to read more about the different learning approaches and how they should be designed, I suggest the following articles :

·      Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education

·      Designing Blended Learning Space to the Student Experience

·      Designing Online courses

·      Designing Online courses: A taxonomy to guide strategic use of features

·      Online vs blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction

·      Why blended learning?

·      Designing blended learning focused on knowledge category and learning activities

References

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The internet and higher education, 7(2), 95-105.

Milne, A. J. (2006). Designing blended learning space to the student experience. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7286/561ce6ea71318a7879cd3e0492e19b19ee5c.pdf [Accessed: 2018-11-19]

Young, J. R. (2002, March 22). ‘Hybrid’ teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online instruction. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A33. http://www.anitacrawley.net/Resources/Articles/GarrisonKanuka2004.pdf  [Accessed 2018-11-20]

Collaborative learning: what is it and how should we go about it?

‘Collaboration’ is not a new term in my dictionary but I have never taught of it in reference to similar but different terms used in the academic context—for instance, cooperation, and group work. Going through the assigned literature for topic three (Learning in communities – networked collaborative learning) and watching the webinar, I see that the conceptualization of “collaborative learning” is understood differently by many. The discussion I attended with my PBL group demonstrated to me how it is difficult to recognize some elements of collaborative learning from what we call “traditional learning”.

We attend courses, seminars and other academic events with the intention of achieving a common goal—learning. However, the intended learning outcome and what we end up learning from the participation of a course might be different. The Mentimeter™ response from the participants of the ONL181 demonstrates this. In my opinion, traditional learning is an arrangement when a student is in the classroom in an attempt to learn something new. Here a student will follow a lecture delivered by a teacher, read the assigned literature/watch videos, do assignments, and take exams. Of course, traditional learning might also involve such activities as group works and seminars. However, there are important points here. First, in traditional learning settings, a student has his/her goal which might be different than what is the intention of other participants. For instance, two students taking a research methodology course might have different interests (case studies, ethnography, data collection, data analysis, etc.) and learning outcomes in mind. Second, the students work individually towards achieving their goals of learning.

Collaborative learning, on the other hand, is a form of learning where individuals go about gaining knowledge about a particular issue together with others—participants with the same/similar goals. It is no surprise that individuals working for the same purpose often find it beneficial to work together. I found a definition of collaborative learning (Dillenbourg, 1999, p. 1) that captures the main essence of collaborative learning: “'collaborative learning' is a learning situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together.” This arrangement is different from the other term closely associated with collaborative learning. From the discussion in my PBL group and the webinar, I see that many participants use the term cooperation as a synonym in the context of online learning. However, I agree with the characterization of the subtle but important difference between the two terms as presented by Siemens (2002). The author argues, even though both collaboration and cooperation entail people working together the goal and motivation is different. Cooperation happens when people work together towards achieving their own individual purposes. Collaboration, on the other hand, is the sharing of ideas and resources towards a common end.

I truly acknowledge the benefit of collaborative learning as it improves our understanding of a specific topic through the facilitation of interactive-  and deep learning. Here, I conquer with Brindley et al. (2009) for their assertion which confirmed the significance of collaborative learning and its association with high learner satisfaction and retention that comes probably as a result of the sense of community during the collaboration process. As Dillenbourg (1991) and Brindley et al. (2009) put it, the fundamental requirement of a collaborative learning is that particular forms of interaction among people are expected to occur which in turn triggers effective learning mechanism. However, it is also worth mentioning that the success of collaborative learning is the function of many factors. I was surprised when I watched the webinar for the third topic. It looks like the list of factors affecting the outcome of ‘online collaborative learning’ is too long. Indeed, good communication, good facilitation and scaffolding, understanding of collaboration as well as the motivation of team members, and good software tools are ranked to be at the top of this list.

On the other hand, the importance of ‘bringing the right people in the team’ did not attract the attention of many garnering only 10% of the vote. In my opinion, the cornerstone of collaborative learning is the common learning goal of participants. Even though we have all the necessary tools, facilitation and communication, I am confident that the effort put to assemble the right people is important. As Capdeferro and Romero (2012) put it, a collection of individuals with unshared goals, commitment imbalance defeats the purpose of collaborative learning. I do also agree that the significance of symmetry of knowledge (Dillenbourg, 1999) which refers to the extent to which the participants of a collaborative team possess a similar level of knowledge. There is nothing more discouraging than a group dynamic which results in one student playing 'catch up' while the other is not challenged enough.

In conclusion, even though collaborative learning has become to be the norm in today’s educational environment, it is worth exploring the many factors affecting its effectiveness. I find the literature to be too much concerned with the issues of online platforms and tools for collaborative learning while little attention is given to on creating a situation where groups are formed with the right people possessing similar levels of commitment, shared goals as well as a similar level of knowledge.

References

Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. M., & Walti, C. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(3), 1-18.

Capdeferro, N., & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences? The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(2), 26-44.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by 'collaborative learning?'. In Collaborative-learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches, 1-19. Elsevier: Oxford

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), January 2005. (Accessed:  2018-11-04) from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/index.htm

Open Learning—What is it and should we embrace it?

After completing the first topic on online participation and digital literacy in the context of education, the discussions I had with colleagues and the literature I went through seem to suggest there is a great potential that could be derived from the use of technology in the teaching learning process. It is apparent that the strides made in ICT has changed the education landscape around the globe. Contrary to my previous belief, I have now learned that, open education does not have to come in the form of digital material nor it needs to be online accessible. However, it is no secret that the declining cost of ICT as well as the improved coverage and high speed of Internet has contributed to the popularity of open learning (Tuomi, 2013).

In the past decades, the phenomenon “Openness in higher education” has been brought up in the literature along with similar concepts such as Open Educational Resources (OER), Open Educational Practices, and Massive Open Online Course (Peter and Deimann, 2013). Indeed, our time has been described as the “open-decade” by some scholars (for instance, Materu, 2004) who has also coined various nick names for those who are keen on embracing the phenomenon of higher education openness. Just for fun, I googled for some of the terms used to refer those educators. I found “Open Scholar” and “Open Professor” referring to open educators while “Open Assessment” is used to refer a method used to make assessments where anyone could take part and contribute (Peters, 2008).

Before taking the course, I did not reflect on a topic which I thought was commonly used in the academic landscape nowadays. I obviously thought no academic would dismiss the significance of openness in education. For me, it is the duty of educators to make the best use of all the resources available to promote and spread knowledge. It is no news for those who are familiar with the recently emerged phenomenon “Massive Open Online Courses” (MOOC). More and more universities including the Ivy Leagues are developing course which are free and open to more and more people from all over the world. However, I have also noticed that there are debates questioning this model of education.

Going through the literature and many online videos on open education, I noticed that the term “open education” has not been fully understood by many. Atkins, Brown, & Hammond, (2007, p. 4) define open education resources as:

“OER are teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use or re-purposing by others. Open educational resources include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used to support access to knowledge”

The articles by Toumi (2013) and D’Antoni and Savage (2009) also provide clear description of open education. Even though the debate surrounding the open education focuses on accessibility, there are three more attributes to open education resources (1) the right and capability to enjoy the services generated by the resource, (2) the right and capability to modify and add value to the resources, (3) accumulative and expansionary dynamic of resource development. The comprehensive understanding of the open education resources will make us responsible users of the resources. This way, the value created from the use of open education resources could be sustained.

In conclusion, I share the fundamental claim that knowledge should be considered to be a common good that should be as accessible and as open as possible (D’Antoni and Savage, 2009). However, I also acknowledge openness in this context is a complex issue encompassing social, economic, cognitive and technical dimensions (Tuomi, 2013). The supporters of open education argue that initiatives should be undertaken to promote open educational resources with no cost for educators and users (McAndrew, 2010). Even though I appreciate the motivation, it is also worth mentioning that there are many stakeholders involved in the development of materials used for open education. In other words, what is no-cost for someone might not necessarily mean that it is free for everyone. Educators and academic institutions need to be informed on such issues as copyright, the interplay between economic and educational factors (Peter and Deimann, 2013).

References

Atkins, D. E., Brown, J. S. & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: achievements, challenges, and new opportunities (Menlo Park, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation).

D’Antoni, S., & Savage, C. (2009). Open educational resources: conversations in cyberspace. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Hug, T. (2016). Defining openness in education. Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-6.

McAndrew, P. (2010). Defining Openness: Updating the Concept of" Open" for a Connected World. Journal of interactive Media in Education, 1-13.

Peter, S., & Deimann, M. (2013). On the role of openness in education: A historical reconstruction. Open Praxis, 5(1), 7-14.

Peter, S., & Farrell, L. (2009). From café education to internet café education. Paper presented at the AARE 2009, Canberra.

Tuomi, I. (2013). Open educational resources and the transformation of education. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 58-78.