Thanks to my family and couple of friends who acted in this short educational movie.
References
Agosto,
D. E., Copeland, A. J., & Zach, L. (2013). Testing the benefits of blended education: Using social technology to
foster collaboration and knowledge sharing in face-to-face LIS courses.
Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 54(2), 94-107.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1399142292?accountid=14872.
Armstrong,
D. A. (2011). Students' perceptions of
online learning and instructional tools: A qualitative study of undergraduate
students use of online tools. TOJET : The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 10(3) Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1288353694?accountid=14872.
Anderson,
T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.).
Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Gerbic,
P. (2010). Getting the blend right in new
learning environments: A complementary approach to online discussions. Education and Information Technologies, 15(2),
125-137. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-009-9100-5.
Fahy,
P. (2008). Characteristics of interactive
online learning media. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 167-199).
Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University.
Kamarul
Kabilan, M., Wan Fara, W. A., & Mohamed, A. E. (2011). Online collaboration of English language teachers for meaningful
professional development experiences. English Teaching, 10(4),
94-n/a. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/926184618?accountid=14872.
Keller,
J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction.
In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview
of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keller,
J. M. (1984). The use of the ARCS model
of motivation in teacher training. In K. Shaw & A. J. Trott (Eds.), Aspects
of Educational Technology Volume XVII: staff Development and Career Updating.
London: Kogan Page.
Keller,
J. M. (1987). Development and use of the
ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3),
2 – 10.
Keskitalo,
T., Pyykkö, E., & Ruokamo, H. (2011). Exploring
the meaningful learning of students in second life. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(1),
16-n/a. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1287031723?accountid=14872.
Moller,
L. (2008). Static
and dynamic technological tools. Unpublished
manuscript, Walden University.
Murphy,
K. L., & Cifuentes, L. (2001). Using
web tools, collaborating, and learning online. Distance Education, 22(2), 285-305. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/217782583?accountid=14872.
Palloff,
R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in
community. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Palloff,
R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities:
Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass. [Kindle touch version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.
Passig,
D., & Schwartz, G. (2007). Collaborative
writing: Online versus frontal. International Journal on ELearning, 6(3),
395-412. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/210366883?accountid=14872.
Piaget,
J. (1969). The Mechanisms of perception.
New York: Routledge Kegan Paul.
Siemens,
G. (2004), Connectivism: a learning
theory for the digital age, retrieved from www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.
Shea,
P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Cognitive
presence and online learner engagement: A cluster analysis of the community of
inquiry framework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3),
199-217. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9024-5.
My philosophy of distance education is based on
pioneer to constructivism, Piaget (1969) ideas surrounding knowledge
construction. Piaget (1969) theorized
that the learning process is always active and grounded in constructing
knowledge rather than acquiring knowledge. People on a whole, learn through
interaction with their world and develop knowledge through social interaction instead
of personal investigation (Piaget, 1969).With this in mind, educators should make use of the opportunities that
new technologies present for learners to interact in learning communities as a
means of constructing their own knowledge. The following is a concept map that
depicts the static-dynamic continuum (please click to enlarge figure).
What the learner does with media is more
crucial than what the instructor does and the instructor’s teaching experience
is not as important as the instructor’s experience with technology (Fahy, 2008,
p. 171). This notion took me by surprise at first, however after much
reflection, I saw where this idea bears a high degree of truth. Judging from my
personal experience, a teacher with less teaching experience than his or her
fellow faculty members might be able to use technology in a manner that will
promote learners higher order thinking levels. When I first started teaching in
higher education a few years ago, I recall receiving a teacher’s award at the
end of that first session! I was surprised because of my lack of teaching
experience. However, looking back now, I realized that my blended learning
students were fully engaged with the technologies I provided for them to
collaborate weekly. For this reason, students’ learning outcomes peaked and
most of all, students were able to write in the end-of-session evaluation how
fulfilling their learning experiences were.
In terms of where I believe I am on the “static-dynamic
continuum,” as a blended learning professor, I believe that I am somewhere in
the middle pushing towards the dynamic sector. I believe that having
technological skills and/or teaching experience are not enough. Teachers in
this new age educational system should learn how to construct aspects of learning
environments to stimulate students’ motivation to learn (Keller, 1983, 1984,
1987).I was glad when Dr. Moller mentioned
the ARCS model in our course shell. I had totally forgotten about this motivational
technique! With new knowledge gained from this course, I am able to see this
learner motivational strategy from a whole new perspective! For more on the
ARCS model see: http://www.arcsmodel.com/#!arcs-model/c1wm1
References
Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The
theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca
University Press.
Fahy,
P. (2008). Characteristics of interactive
online learning media. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 167-199).
Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University.
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational
design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories
and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Keller, J. M. (1984). The use of the ARCS model of motivation in
teacher training. In K. Shaw & A. J. Trott (Eds.), Aspects of Educational
Technology Volume XVII: staff Development and Career Updating. London:
Kogan Page.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of
motivational design.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2 – 10.
Moller,
L. (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools. Unpublished manuscript, Walden University.
Piaget, J. (1969). The Mechanisms of perception. New York:
Routledge Kegan Paul.
Siemens,
Anderson and Durrington suggested instructional strategies for engaging online
students and suggested tools for structuring classroom environments that will
improve teaching and learning experiences. Siemens in his podcast, for example, spoke of
inherent issues with online learning where students have web access to all the
material/resources that the teacher has, and that teachers should not to expect
students to navigate effectively through all these resources without some
guidance (Learnonline, 2007). Siemens’ solution to these problems was
curatorial teaching. Anderson (2008) on the other hand, believed that to fully
engage learners online, there need to be sufficient levels of three components
of presences in online learning environments: social presence, cognitive
presence, and teaching presence (p.344).Based on this notion, Anderson (2008) constructed the Community of
Inquiry model. Adding to this body of knowledge and resources to improve online
teaching and learning, Durrington, Berryhill & Swafford (2006) suggested
strategies for increasing student interactivity via structured learning
environment, discussions, peer-to-peer interactions, and problem-based learning.The following is a graphical
display of these instructional strategies for engaging learners in distance
education. Please note that there are common
characteristics shared between strategies surrounding:
and
For instance,
Siemen’s curatorial teaching (with web artifacts) is present is all three areas. Also, Durrington et al. (2006) asynchronous mediated
discussion strategies and student mediated discussion are present in both
content and communication segments.
Figure 1. Graphical organizer depicting instructional
strategies for engaging learners in distance education.
Bringing Learners’
Technological into Distance Education
Online
tools are in abundance today, aiding interactions between co-workers, family
and friends. Many of these online tools that learners use outside the classroom
on a social level can also be used in distance education to help students
collaborate and construct knowledge. For instance, virtual bookmarks can be
shared among learners who are using digital books. Examples, of virtual
bookmarks are Delicious or Diigo. Social networking sites such as
Facebook, Friendster, LinkedIn and MySpace can also be brought over into online
courses of which peers will be allowed to post photos, videos, and comments as
a means of connecting and networking online. Google offers practical collaborative
tools such as Google Docs and Google groups. Synchronous communication can occur with most
of these tools, which can improve authentic learning. Twitter, live video
streaming and podcasting are good examples of this. Online learners already possess
computers and Internet connection to become engaged in all these activities,
the only missing element here is an incorporation of these tools within the
learning platform.
References
Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The
theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca
University Press.
