Module 4

CLICK ON PICTURE TO SEE BIGGER IMAGE.



This Structured Online Learning Environment depicts a combination of methods and theories as offered by Anderson (2008), Moller, Prestera, Harvey, Downs-Keller, and McCausland. (n.d.), and Durrington, Beryhill, and Swafford (2006).

Structure:
The main structure shows that the student is the center of the structure but sits upon a strong foundation that has been built by the university, the community, and the facilitator (teacher).

Facilitator:
The role of the facilitator is as offered by Moller, Prestera, Harvey, Downs-Keller, and McCausland. (n.d.), that of a “guide, mentor, catalyst, coach, assessment-giver, and resource-provider” (p. 20).

Medium:
Once given guidance and a starting structure by the facilitator, the student utilizes current technological tools to achieve the outcomes of learning. The list of tools reads: Multimedia, blogs, wikipages, webpages, social networking sites, discussion boards, email, chat forums, synchronous methods, and ___________

The blank line denotes that even by the time this discussion is posted, a new technological advancement might appear and should be used in lieu of blogs or wikipages. The purpose of the “Medium” box is to demonstrate that technology offers many means to reach learning outcomes that were never before available and that educational outcomes should not be limited by platforms of the past.

Activities:
The activities represent the areas as outlined by Durrington, Beryhill, and Swafford (2006) and Moller, Prestera, Harvey, Downs-Keller, and McCausland. (n.d.). They include interaction and discussion with both peers and facilitators in various modes including guided discussions, generated discussions, and informal discussions/inquiry. As well, the activities include content knowledge building as discussed by Moller, et al. (n.d.) Finally the last piece of problem solving together with all the activities culminate in an application of learning project.

Note:
1. The arrows attempt to connect all phases and the flow runs both ways.
2. The diagram is meant to look a bit 3-D, lifted off of the page. This is a subtle representation of the idea of seeing “outside of the box” or in this case “off the page.”

References

Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Durington, V.A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190-192.

Moller, Prestera, Harvey, Downs-Keller, McCausland. (n.d). Creating an Organic Knowledge-Building Environment within an Asynchronous Distributed Learning Context. [Study notes]. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3206859&Survey=1&47=5050260&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1 on January 21, 2009.

Response to Jean's Blog

Some how Jean's blog on FLOW will not let me upload this comment. I tried several times, so I am uploading it to my own blog. See comments to this post.

Video Outline

Outline for

Project for EDUC 8442
The 5 minute introduction to a guest speaker

Copyright – Who’s gonna’ know?

I. Introductory Slides

Title Page: Copyright - Who’s gonna’ know?
Page 2: Keynote speaker: John Smith, PhD
Page 3: Introduced by: Koh Herlong

II. Video begins

Welcome

To conference, title of presentation, name of speaker.

A few sample cases of copyright infringement.

What is copyright? Why is it important? Why important in DE?

Areas to consider

Who:
a. Institution
b. Faculty
c. Students

Intention:
a. Ignorant copyright
b. Blatant copyright
c. Confused copyright

Types:
a. Hard-copy text
b. Photocopying
c. Online text
d. Music, video, pictures
e. Other

Copyright and DE
In the foundational structure of a DE program
Non-revenue budget line
Rogers’s (2003) “unanticipated, far-reaching, and disruptive” (p. 100) consequences.

III. Conclusion
Summary statement

a. Summarize
b. Not a matter of getting caught - matter of ethics and honor – another can of worms
c. Introduction of guest speaker

IV. Closing screen with references

Reference for this outline
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Module 3: Assessing a Collaborative Community

Part I
Ms. Eder in her Module 3 blog posting http://eder8842.blogspot.com/ provides a concise summary of an excellent model for assessing a collaborative community such as is done in the Walden University courses. But indeed assessing a collaborative community is brand new challenge because the concept of a collaborative community in itself is a new platform and environment.

Some instructional design theories begin with the assessment stage. So perhaps when a collaborative community course is being designed, it should begin with identifying the learning or behavioral outcomes followed by a storyboard of the delivery method while simultaneously developing the assessment rubric. In other words, a DE designer should not ask, “How will we asses this?” after it’s been designed but rather before and during the design process. So “how to assess” a program will depend on the design and method of the course.

Siemens (2008) suggests the community of learners as assessors. He does state that it is a new concept which will require a new pedagogy in assessing, and it will take time for us to break out of the old traditional mold. But he seems to be a strong advocate of this peer review model. For me personally, this presents some challenges for several reasons:

Siemens (2008) used the “Did you find this answer useful?” (p. 1) analogy. Students come from all different backgrounds and knowledge levels. Information that is useful for one student may be completely useless for another student. As the learner being assessed, my goal is to learn, not to try to appeal to all knowledge levels of my peers.

As a learner who has to review and grade my peers, that pressure places undue stress on me. My goal, let’s say as an aerospace engineer student, is to learn about aerospace engineering, not to learn how to be an assessor of others. Yes, learning and living in a collaborative community is bound to have benefits as we all diffuse ourselves in to this online world, but the pressure and idea of assessing and learning simultaneously may be a deterrent.

Closely aligned with #2 above, students would have to not only learn how to properly participate in a community but also learn how to be a fair assessor. Is that the goal of this aerospace engineering course?


Part II
How do you handle those who do not participate in the community? I am believer in prevention rather than reaction, when possible. If a program requires a collaborative community, this should be clearly defined before a student is allowed to enroll in that program. Therefore the “lone learner” will know of the collaboration requirement in advance. Once enrolled, then as Palloff and Pratt (2005) suggest, some sort of clear agreement or team charter should be created by all members of the community. The team charter would then define the action steps and consequences. All members of the community should sign off on the final product. The contents of the agreement would depend on the learners, the course, and the community structure.

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Siemens, G. (2008). Assessment of collaborative learning. [Study video transcript]. Retrieved January 3, 2008 from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3206859&Survey=1&47=5050260&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1 Only available to Walden students enrolled in EDUC 8442.