|
EDTEC 650
Commentaries on "Handbook of Distance Education" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bookmarks: Selection of area of Interest Report #1 (Articles #21-22) Report #2 (Articles #18-20) Report #3 (Articles #23-25) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Commentary on "Handbook of Distance Education" Selection of Area of Interest I have chosen Part III from the “Handbook of Distance Education” to read over the duration of EDTEC 650. The articles presented in this section seem to pertain to the area of interest that I will investigate this semester. While initially, my motives for taking courses in the Edtec Program were unclear to me, I have come to a better understanding of what I hope to accomplish. I intend to pursue both a technology project and a research paper that will best prepare me for one day teaching a distance education course. This goal of teaching a distance education course is consistent with the some of the skills as a teacher that I have now and with the additional objective of improving my knowledge and skills in this area. Further, the opportunity to provide instruction in an area of education (Distance Education) that has a long and venerable history but finds itself in new circumstances (emerging computer technologies) is a challenge I wish to address. So, the goal is to equip myself with as many of the abilities as I can that are necessary to recognize appropriate instructional materials, personally conduct a distance education course (presumably online) and develop adequate assessment instruments. Additionally, I’m hoping that what I learn from Part III of “The Handbook of Distance Education” and the references that are provided by the authors of the articles presented in this section will enhance the teaching quality that I would like to offer. Specifically, Part III of the text “Design and Teaching” would appear to fulfill the first two of my objectives by providing information about the necessary ingredients for assembling instructional materials and developing the rationale and skills to deliver instruction. It is likely that I will have to look for other references that address learning outcomes and assessment techniques. When I have assimilated this knowledge I can then combine it with my subject area and begin to pursue my general goal which is to teach online. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Commentary on "Handbook of Distance Education" Report #1 (2nd third of chosen section)
This commentary is intended to report my interpretation of a subset of articles from Part III: Design and Teaching of the Handbook on Distance Education (2007). The two articles chosen came closest to fitting my goal of learning more about teaching presence in online educational environments. The titles are: “Teaching and Learning in Directed Environments” and “Teaching and Learning in Negotiated and Informal Environments “(articles #21 & 22).
While the two articles are by different authors they do seem to be companion pieces and that is why they were placed together in this edited monograph. The framework of the articles are similar but address different aspects of a continuum of the range of online learning environments, namely directed, negotiated and informal online learning experiences.
My understanding is that a directed environment is one in which the online instruction is highly structured and may be led by various degrees of instructor involvement. Activities of learners are highly specified through learning objectives and students outcomes are based upon required assessments. Negotiated environments are those that allow the student to participate in the direction of their learning and determination of how their work shall be assessed. Teacher and student, together, decide what is to be learned and how to approach the negotiated goals.
Informal environments are those in which the student has a completely “open field” as to what subjects they will pursue, the depth to which they investigate that subject and full decision making as to when they have learned enough. According to these authors, these are the circumstances that most of learn within through most of our lives.
The authors of each article, as a part of their characterization of these learning environments, addressed similar aspects of design, teaching presence, and assessment. Being interested in the teaching presence perspective, I would make the following parallels by virtue of the descriptions of these learning environments.
1) The first would be to equate the degree of teaching presence as more for the directed learning environment (although the studies cited by the author suggest that less is just as good) and some for the negotiated environment and none for the informal environment (or only to the level that the student chooses).
2) Secondly, I would draw a comparison between the three environments and a continuum extending from teaching-centered instruction (for directed learning environments) and learner-centered instruction (towardvinformal learning environments).
I think that this paper did not deliver the perspective on teaching at distance that I was looking for, namely, how to establish a teaching presence. I found that it almost smothered its message in “scholarly jargon”. It did however, show that the level of teacher involvement may not be as crucial to student outcomes as I thought even when meeting learning objectives that are highly specified.
My greater sense of value of these articles comes from the realization that much more is accomplished by the initiative of the learner and that, in general, the goal of distance education to create a more learned-centered educational environment is justified. A recent article that I read about online education in the community colleges of Florida (Barret, Bower and Donovan, 2007) suggests that much more needs to be done in terms of equipping instructors with the skills to create learner-centered instruction.
References
Moore, G.M. (Ed.), (2007). Handbook of Distance Education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Barrett K.R., Bower, B.L. and Donovan, N.C. (2007). Teaching styles of community college instructors. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 37-49. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Commentary on "Handbook of Distance Education" Report #2 (1st third of chosen section)
This commentary is intended to report my interpretation of a subset of articles from Part III: Design and Teaching from the “Handbook on Distance Education” (2007). The three articles chosen come from the first part of Part III.
This series of papers provide many valuable considerations for the designer of online courses whether asynchronous or synchronous. The first paper discusses the principal design factors: Learner autonomy, interaction, access, costs. The second paper examines the more general considerations for online teaching in the form of frameworks. The third paper lists and describes four approaches to instruction that is more student-centered.
In the first article (18) by Rick Shearer, he begins this section by taking a look at the design factors that can be taken into account when assembling a distance education course. His suggestions begin with factors that should be considered before beginning to design the course. They are: a) The audience characteristics, b) Geographic dispersion of the audience, c) The technologies available to the audience, d) The goals of the learners, g) The costs of delivery, h) The political environment, i) Faculty compensation, j) Market competition. These will all be important in guiding the course design.
The author next discusses the principal design factors. They are: First, at the theoretical level; the degree of transactional distance that will be appropriate for the course, this influences the first design consideration. 1) The desired level of learner autonomy and learner control, 2) Level of interaction among peers and with the instructor, 3) Are there any limiting factors to access to the course, 4) Costs.
Lastly, the author discusses the benefits and deficiencies that various technologies of delivery may have the 4 primary design factors. Print media Benefits 1) Number of individuals who know how to use the medium. 2) Ease of distribution nationally through the postal system. 3) Adaptability to address several disabilities. 4) Fairly inexpensive to duplicate. 5) Tends to have a long shelf life. 6) Production costs are low. 7) No additional equipment needed by the learners. Drawbacks Must be coupled with 1) Postal service. 2) Fax. 3) Telephone. 4) Internet.
Educational Television Benefits: 1) Increases access. 2) Increases learner autonomy. 3) Visual medium Drawbacks: 1) Decreased interaction
Two-way Interactive Video Teleconferencing Benefits: 1) Extended the classroom. Drawbacks: 1) Expensive. 2) Limited audience. 3) Requires sophisticated telephony technology.
The Internet & World Wide Web Benefits: 1) Immediacy of feedback, assessment, and collaboration. Drawbacks: 1) Accessibility. 2) Costs.
Bringing together all of the considerations for design presented in this paper will be helpful regardless of the type of medium used.
The second paper (19) “Frameworks for Design and Instruction” puts forth design considerations that are applicable to online teaching. The authors Bonk and Dennen describe five web-based instruction frameworks.
Framework #1: Psychological justification for online learning. 14 learner-centered psychological principles are linked to 12 guidelines for using the web in instruction.
Framework #2: Participant interaction. Documents how online interactions among three key participants-instructors, students, and practitioners.
Framework #3: Level of web or technology integration. Highlights 12 levels of web integration. (Establishes a hierarchy of web involvement for both instructor and student.)
Framework #4: Instructor and student roles. Considers the various roles that instructors and students can play in online learning environments.
Framework #5: Pedagogical strategies. Presents many learning activities that can be effectively used to enhance the quality of online teaching.
Many useful suggestions are provided in this paper that are of a very applied nature. This could be big for my paper. Underscore the value of online discussion.
The third paper (20) “Instructional Designs for Optimal Learning” again focuses on the importance and central role for instructional design in distance education. Four designs are offered the describe more student-centered approaches.
Scenario-Based Learning Authentic or contrived scenarios form the basis of all learning, teaching and assessment activities. Requires a “precipitating event” that will trigger a chain of events and a goal for the learner to pursue.
Problem-Based Learning A contrived but authentic problem provides the anchor for all learning, teaching, and assessment activities. Not necessarily a problem but could be an event.
Critical Incident-Based Learning The learner is to identify a critical incident from their home or work place and suggest how this is an opportunity for learning. Based on taking action.
Design-Based Learning Requires a design task that is based on information gathering, problem solving, constraint setting, idea generation, modeling, prototyping and evaluating. Used for skill development ad knowledge acquisition in practice-based disciplines.
Also provided in this paper is a definition and description for scaffolding. It is support for students that they cannot provide for themselves. Must be provided by some outside source (person or reference source). ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Commentary on "Handbook of Distance Education" Report #3 (last third of chosen section)
These series of articles are really so valuable that my best approach is to list the suggestions that are to be found here. As well, the references should be included that will provide important guidelines in the future for anyone who may take on the task of teaching online.
Ch 23; Developing Text for Web-based Instruction. By: Diane J. Davis, Univ. of Pittsburgh
The stated goal of this author is to provide guidelines and ideas for the effective use of text in online courses.
Best guides for writing on the web, are intended to enable attractive and effective commercial web sites.
Recommended sources:
Morkes, J., and Nielson J. (1997). Concise, scannable, and objective: How to write for the web. Available from http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html
Nielson, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The Practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders. And other online web style guides.
The other aspect of web writing is how the user should use it. This article provides 7 approaches to use.
1) Use existing knowledge to make sense of text. 2) Monitor comprehension throughout the text. 3) Repair comprehension when it goes awry. 4) Determine what’s important in the text. 5) Synthesize information from readings. 6) Draw inferences during and after reading. 7) Ask questions.
Mokhtari, K., and Reichar, C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), pp.249-259.
Ch. 24: Modes of Interaction. By Terry Anderson and Alex Kuskis.
1) Learner-Learner Interaction 2) Learner-Content Interaction. 3) Teacher-Content Interaction. 4) Teacher-Teacher Interaction. 5) Learner-Teacher Interaction. 6) Learner-Institution Interaction.
Increases in interaction add to the faculty workload.
Ch. 25: Collaborative Interaction. By Morris Sammons.
A clear definition for scaffolding is provided here – they are teacher’s actions and activities that support collaborative learning.
|