[James Kerr]

Another resource, an oldie but a goodie, is The Dynamics of Discussion, by Barnlund.  It was written in the 1960s, but includes good information on what constitutes quality discussion and responses.  I have adapted it slightly to define what constitutes a quality response post for online discussion boards:

Substantive post – the post should:
1) Contribute relevant information pertinent to the topic.
2) Incorporate the learner’s point of view to the topic or previous post.
3) Evaluate others’ opinions or information if the learner does not have anything new to add.
4) Facilitate the discussion if items 1-3 have already been addressed. (Points 1-4: Barnlund, 1960)

Barnlund, D. C., & Haiman, F. S. (1960). The dynamics of discussion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

[James Kerr]

I think if I were in Sancha’s position I would be slightly more conservative about the use of blogs as the primary means of assessment.  I think it is a good component to include, as it would be an accurate representation of how their work will be assessed by consumers and the public later in their fields, but for academic assessment, I would provide the rubric-guided assessment notes private, with the option of posting a “critical” review on a more public blog space.  The assessment would be directly related to the assignment, but the review would be more related to the “spirit” of the assignment, in terms of an artistic commentary.

[James Kerr]

Sancha,

The challenge with open education and credentialing such as badging is that it puts the onus to the employers to determine and assess suitable knowledge levels.  Having a degree gives some level of assurance that the person has been educated and trained.  However, I don’t know of too many employers that don’t test knowledge in some fashion anyway, so “proving” one’s knowledge level to a potential employer would be an extension to practices already occurring.

I believe that is why the phrase “or an equivalent level of experience” is seen so frequently in employment postings.

[James Kerr]

Hayley,

It’s a commercial, closed platform, first of all, but our institution keeps it as a closed resource, only available from within.  It’s not open to the public, so it’s not open in that sense, nor is it open in the sense that we have access to source code and can freely modify any part of it.

When we want or need activities to be open, in terms of access or freedom, we turn to alternatives, such as WP or others.  We also turn to alternatives when the tools within the LMS are too restrictive or limiting in their functionality.

[James Kerr]

Stephen and Phil,

That’s the rub, isn’t it?  When we purchase Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) tech, be it hardware and/or software, it’s usually closed system.  These COTS systems do not usually lend themselves to modification.  One would either have to buy into an open system (hardware and software) or completely DIY, from the clickers to the programming.  Alas, this is either beyond many’s abilities or more investment in time and energy than desired or available.  Open is great, but to modify requires a completely different level of commitment, set of tools, and set of skills.

Jim

[James Kerr]

Our institution license Adobe Connect for VLE.  We have been promoting its use not only for instructional use but also to support administrative tasks, such as meetings and seminars.  Generally, our users have found it quite easy to learn and use, and have been mostly satisfied with it.  But that’s all-just mostly satisfied.  No one is super excited about it.

In years prior, we used Elluminate, which I personally prefer to Connect.  That was a product that we had polarization with; some people loved it and wanted to use it for everything, others hated it and wanted nothing to do with it.  One thing was clear, however: even though Elluminate was a technologically better product than Connect (again, my opinion) it was less intuitive to use, and hence, people preferred Connect’s ease of use, even if it is functionally more limited.

When using Connect for HyFlex instruction, it definitely makes the course delivery smoother with a second person manning the chat window and the backchannel questions.  In some active seminars I’ve been in, there was quite a bit of audio conversation happening at the same time as separate live chat, and the only way to digest everything happening was to review the recording post-event.  There was no way to maintain focus on the chat and the speaking simultaneously. It really was two separate conversations happening at the same time, which wouldn’t necessarily work in a class setting unless breakout groups are part of the plan.

In my collaborative work as a doctoral student, I have used Skype, FaceTime, and Google Hangouts and Docs extensively to work with other students in classes, as I live 90 minutes from the campus I attend. For discussion and brainstorming, all three tools worked adequately, but for collaborative work, Google Docs proved the most valuable, as we could see each others’ work in real time, while maintaining either a text chat or other live discussion tool open.

These real-time tele-presence tools are some of my favorite things to instruct and use.  They have been a real time-saver for my position at a regional campus, and I have been able to be more involved with central campus committees and events thanks to these remote participation applications.

[James Kerr]

The ability to create electronic portfolios and link them easily to other social networking sites, and not just in a “closed, black-box” environment is a side project I am working on.  I see a need for a quasi-social space where learners of any age can keep track of their projects, no matter what the format, and be able to include badges and credentials, then not only link that to current SN sites but also easily be able to invite/include others to view their portfolios.  There are a number of ePortfolio resources available, but I haven’t found one yet that does quite what I am considering.  Think of it as a combination of LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Google Docs, all mashed together into one resources.  Examples of writing, pictures, art, music, videos, recordings, etc can all be catalogued and assembled into a living digital portfolio that would easily allow people to share their digital works, whether to potential employers, colleagues, backers, etc.

Thoughts?

[James Kerr]

From an institutional branding point of view, it makes sense for all online coursework and materials to have a consistent look and feel; however, the reality of it is many faculty don’t want to be constrained by style choices already made for them by a committee or non-academics.  Please allow me to play the institutional side; consistent interface choices means that resources can be designed and deployed from a central location, reducing redundancy and duplication of services.  When changes need to be made to a core set of templates, those changes can be made in one place.  Students have consistency throughout their courses, can find relevant institutional resources in the same place in every online environment, and faculty and instructional designers can concentrate more on content and teaching than design and mechanics of the course.

The flip side:  If it’s a clumsy or poorly designed interface, everything suffers from it.  Students will face the same interface in every course, with no significant differences in the look and feel.  This can lead to student apathy and boredom.  There may be content areas or courses that conflict with the singular design philosophy; are exceptions made for those courses?  Once exceptions are made for one, will they be allowed for many?

Better to have guidelines and best practices in place, style guides and resources required to be included in courses, rather than strict design mandates.  Allow for personalization and individuality, to a degree.

[James Kerr]

Phil,

I don’t think your idea is crazy at all-using the tools in a preferred context is far superior from a sterile setting where, for example, one learns to use blogging by reading and responding to a blog.  Sterile, laboratory training settings lead to responses like “This is my blog post” or “I am writing this because I have to.”  If you could get the students to make connections into other coursework they are doing, in say a creative writing course, or an art course, or in fact, any area that interests them, they are more likely to be creative and have a more positive learning experience while learning Moodle.

Situated learning and experiential learning-much better than simple training, in my opinion.

Jim

[James Kerr]

Once one masters the tools and theories of graphic design, can it then show more emphasis on the feeling aspect?

[James Kerr]

When I have taught introductory computer science courses to undergraduate students, regardless of their year, there seems to be an expectation of being spoon-fed the content, presumably because it is an intro-level course.  There is little exploration or self-discovery, but much “will this be on the exam”.  To help counter this, I have utilized exploration-based activities, similar to a web quest or scavenger hunt, but to exercise the students’ ability to explore on their own without specific, step-by-step directions.  These activities tend to allow the students to approach responses from their own perspective, rather than just the “by the book” answer.  Even though nine times out of ten the answers are very similar, it’s the one-in-ten response out of left field that we often use as a jumping off point to explore related but different areas.

This is drastically different from when I am running faculty and staff training sessions, when the objective is clearly “learn how to use this application”.  Those sessions are strictly directed and focused.  I suppose this starts to delineate between learning and training, but there are definitely different learning styles being emphasized.

Then, there is graduate-level academic work, which is different yet from the other two, based much more on experience and feeling/interpretation.

[James Kerr]

My problem with PPoint and/or Prezi (presentations in general) is not the tools, it’s the presenter.  The slide should either support and enhance the spoken word or vice-versa; don’t just recite what’s on the slide.  Otherwise it’s all just fancy captioning.

I have given presentations and lectures where the slides were completely random and had nothing to do with the talk just to see where people’s attention lies.  Unfortunately, PPoint and like tools often induce “presentation coma” regardless of how interesting and engaging the presenter is.

[James Kerr]

I regularly use The Brain (http://www.thebrain.com/) during the design process, and occasionally as an instructional resource or activity.

[James Kerr]

One of the learning objectives in my introductory computer science courses is always about citing resources; since it’s an introductory class usually populated with first-year students, this reinforces the requirements for citations that they will need throughout their university career (and beyond).

[James Kerr]

Sancha,

You are correct – Defining expectations and rationale should frame every exercise in educational resource use!  Once a primary, authoritative, and acceptable resource is identified, then it can be properly introduced into the learning experience.

[Author]

Posts