5.3 Key principles

I wanted to informally record some of my initial thoughts about the literature for activity 5.3 so I have something to return to after we (group A) have gone through the process of designing and developing a poster featuring the key principles of e-learning practice. Hopefully this will enrich my reflection at 5.4.

Hillier (2002) highlights the difference in perspectives of excellent teaching from policy and practice. The student view is that an excellent teacher is characterized by ability to plan, use resources, have excellent subject knowledge, be able to communicate effectively and have good interpersonal skills. I think all of these are critical in an online context too, but the one I wanted to focus on was to communication aspect. Interactivity is underpins the success of online teaching and learning, and for interaction to take place, functional mechanisms for communication must be in place. The e-learning professional needs to recognize that skills in using these communication tools are fundamental to their practice.

The output from the workshop carried out by Goodyear et al (2001) starts to articulate a wide range of competences. Even though these are distributed across identified roles, there are some common parallels that underpin many of the themes arising. For example, across the roles of ‘process facilitator’, ‘assessor’ and ‘technologist’ a theme concerning privacy, ethics and respect emerges from the following criteria: “Respect the privacy of individuals and group members.” “Appreciate ethical issues.” “Respect the intellectual property rights of others.”

The JISC (2004) Effective Practice Guide has a useful table on page 51 that summarizes some of the issues that you need to consider when developing online learning activities. Similar themes arise, motives for learning, availability of resources and tools, for example. These are beautifully articulated in the diagram on page 49, where there is a clear indication that the focus is on the learning activity. This makes sense, as it is the pivot for all those other features: the student is motivated by what task they are to undertake next; the assessment of the task; the interactive experience whilst it is undertaken; reflection on the activity; and so on.

–

I’ve started to formulate a series of principles that I feel should underpin e-learning practice, although as I write, I think they are maybe categorized in other ways in the literature… anyway, here goes:

1) Ethical Practice – Act in an ethical and professional manner at all times, respecting the privacy of individuals and acknowledging the potential risks of using online tools. Seek out and contribute to the development of protocols for responsible and professional use of tools in the educational context.

2) Motivate – Find ways of motivating online participants (involved in both teaching and learning) and “ensure active participation of all learners.” (Goodyear et al, 2001) Help build support networks that engender a work ethic by establishing a community of practice.

3) Communication and Interactivity – Always keep in mind the need for interactivity. Communicate in an organized and articulate manner and encourage focused interactivity. “Instructors should provides clear guidelines for interaction with students.” “Well designed discussion assignments facilitate meaningful cooperation among students.” (Graham et al, 2001) – 3a) Expectations – Communicate expectations relating to contact, deadlines and support.

4) Ownership and Personalization through Reflection – Prioritize reflection as a mechanism for personalized learning, and encourage the use of technologies that enable personalized learning. Create online learning opportunities that allow students to take ownership of their individual and group endeavours.

5) Technology Awareness – A responsibility to maintain knowledge of the technologies that may be effectively applied for online teaching and learning, to have an understanding of their capabilities and limitations, and to take into account the training and development needs of using technologies.

–

Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, M., Steeples, C. and Tickner, S. (2001) ‘Competencies for online teaching’, Educational Technology Research & Development, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 65–72. Available online as a course resource from: http://learn.open.ac.uk/mod/resourcepage/view.php?id=90970 (accessed 9 November 2008)

Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Lim, B.-R., Craner, J. and Duffy, T.M. (2001) ‘Seven principles of effective teaching: a practical lens for evaluating online courses’ [online], The Technology Source, March/April. Available from: http://technologysource.org/article/seven_principles_of_effective_teaching/ (accessed 9 November 2008)

Hillier, Y. (2002) ‘The quest for competence, good practice and excellence’ [online], The Higher Education Academy. Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/id494_quest_for_competence?i=academyYork (accessed 9 November 2008)

JISC (2004) ‘Effective practice with elearning: a good practice guide in designing for learning’ [online], JISC/HEFCE. Available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/ACF5D0.pdf (accessed 9 November 2008)

5.2 Case studies

I have been having a look through some of the case studies on the Carnegie Foundation website and picked out a few to write a little bit about.

1) What methods have the researchers used to measure/assess the effects of their teaching designs on student learning?

There were many mechanisms for data collection outlined by the action researchers, so I’ve just chosen a few to briefly summarize. Mino’s (2006) method for was to ask students to talk about examples of written work, using the discussions as evidence. Details of the analytical approach to the data are available, adding to the validity of the research because we can assess it’s objectivity.

Mock (2006) utilizes a comparitive methodology by evaluating the progress of the faculty being investigated from point A to point B. This method is a good one to use in action, or practitoner, research because it enables the practitioner to reflect on their own practice to inform the impact assessment. However, it does require the identification of clear evaluative criteria from the outset. Because this method is temporal, it’s good for evaluating change.

Another comparitive method is used by Chudler (n.d.), who uses a control group to identify the differences between students who have had access to a new learning resource, and those who have not. This method may have been informed by the scientific disciplinary background to the work, where use of control subjects is common practice.

2) Design of websites/posters

As I explored the numerous project ’snapshots’ (not dissimilar to e-portfolio outputs), I jotted down anything which caught my attention from a design perspective. The one’s that caught my eye had certain features built into them, so I’ve listed them here:

• Clear, concise written elements in an accessible sans-serif typeface
• Inclusion of project summary or abstract
• Embedded video, or use of stimulating imagery
• Clear bulleting and headings – content well structured
• Visual structure (3 columns enables display of more information in a visually manageable way)
• Use of diagrams to quickly explain theories, models or processes
• Other things included were key quotes, ‘quick facts’ and links.

I felt a good example of a ’snapshot’ was the work of Bass (2003). I felt it was also good practice to include opportunities to review and revise the snapshot periodically.

–

Bass, R. (2003) ‘Bridging expert and novice learning in general education courses at Georgetown University’, Gallery of Teaching and Learning, Carnegie Foundation [online] Available from: http://cms.carnegiefoundation.org/collections/keep/cfat_hewlett/cfat_hewlett1.html (Accessed 3 November 2008)

Chudler, E. (n.d.) ‘Neuroscience for kids’, Gallery of Teaching and Learning, Carnegie Foundation [online] Available from: http://cms.carnegiefoundation.org/collections/keep/merlot/merlotOne.html (Accessed 3 November 2008)

Mino, J. (2006) ‘The link aloud: making interdisciplinary learning visible and audible’, Gallery of Teaching and Learning, Carnegie Foundation [online] Available from: http://www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=6508959910375 (Accessed 3 November 2008)

Mock, K. (2006) ‘Tablet PC collaborative software development for fieldwork-based courses’, Gallery of Teaching and Learning, Carnegie Foundation [online] Available from: http://cms.carnegiefoundation.org/collections/keep/hp/uaa.html (Accessed 3 November 2008)