Assignment 1!

Hello and apologies that there has been a little break in blog posts recently. I was off on “holiday” (which proved to be more exhausting than normal work!) and then when I came back I was straight into Assignment 1, which took up much of my time over the past week. For that, I decided to press ahead with my (slightly underdeveloped) idea of taking the MOOC forward for the dissertation proposal. So how did I get back up to speed with the literature and shaping the proposal draft for submission? Well, taking some of the skills that I have picked up over the years on writing introductions for research papers, I knew that the structure of assignment 1 would consist roughly of:

• Background context of the chosen research topic;
• What we currently know about the topic vs what we don’t know;
• Draw together a convincing argument (i.e., research questions) for what are the most important things that we should know, and how finding this out will benefit the research domain and practitioners.

With this basic structure in mind, I spent a few days collecting as much literature on MOOC as I could (whilst logging the bibliographic data for each in Refworks for future referencing). I then went through each and observed what they said about MOOCs in terms of what they are, why they are important, and what research should be conducted. I thus started to flesh out these three core elements of the structure. Am I happy with the result? Well I found it very therapeutic as the reading and writing has definitely helped me to gather together my thoughts and formulate (what I believe is) a reasoned proposal for studying MOOCs for the dissertation.

So what are my thoughts on the focus of motivational aspects of MOOCs? Before I read through the 70+ articles that I found on this (initial) literature search, I would have argued that this was actually too obvious a topic! However, there were numerous articles that proposed this in their closing statements as what online learning genuinely needs to progress and so, reservations aside, this shall form the core of my literature review that I will conduct in Unit 3. Speaking of which, the next blog post will consider the learning materials provided (tutorial videos, example literature reviews, etc.) and I will also explore some more article methodologies, before diving into my own review of the (substantial) body of literature on motivational aspects of the MOOC.

 

Methodology – it really is a mixed bag

In this blog post I will be looking at the first (of several) online education articles in terms of their methodological approach taken. In keeping with the previous post, in which I identified the MOOC topic as a potential option for the dissertation, I have decided to explore an article on that subject. My chosen article for this post is a 2010 paper by Mackness et al. that was presented at the 7^th International Conference on Networked Learning and was published in their proceedings.

This paper explored the ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC, using an online survey that was emailed to active MOOC participants, in addition to email interview data from self-selected interviewees. Unfortunately, the article did not provide any insights into the philosophical position of the study, nor the research paradigm and rationale. However, inferences can still be made. The study clearly adopted a mixed method approach, which would appear to adhere to a ‘relativism’ stance as discussed in Tutorial 5 “Linking Philosophy and Methods”. With relativism, the positioning is somewhere between qualitative and quantitative, with assumptions that it is difficult to gain a clear understanding of these structures. It is also said to triangulate data based on different research perspectives and methods. So why was this positioning used in this study? Why incorporate both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods? Well, according to the article, the data collection consisted of two stages, in which the participants were first surveyed about their preferences for communicating in blogs and forums. Next, the analysis of the survey responses informed the email interview questions that further explored the participants’ learning experiences. The survey was emailed to a total of 301 participants (bloggers, forum users and course instructors), with 90 responses. Apparently, the survey responses alone generated enough data to produce another research paper, thus indicating that this scale of survey data (300 invitations with around 100 responses) may be appropriate for a Masters-level dissertation.

Apparently, 22 responses were then received for the “email interview”, which unfortunately was not sufficiently explained in the paper. From my experience, the requirement for in-depth quality data from interviews precludes the option to conduct them via email. I have always conducted my research interviews face-to-face or via Skype for those based outside of the UK. Getting back to the article, sadly no information was forthcoming about the actual analysis that was conducted on either dataset, thus I am limited as to what I can learn from this study. Certainly the option of conducting a mixed method study is feasible, although the subject of my dissertation would need to have research questions that were strongly aligned with this approach of gauging initial opinions via surveys and then further exploring the topics via interviews. Certainly, this approach would be the most time-consuming – not only due to the two very different datasets to be analysed, but also due to the waiting associated with the surveys plus the two-stage aspect which means that I would not be able to begin the interviews until the survey data had been received and analyzed. Due to the timescale for the dissertation, this may prove too challenging, although at this stage I shall keep my options open. For now, I have some food for thought as I continue to read around the MOOC (and other) topic(s) and explore different options for the dissertation.

Jordan

 

References

Mackness, Jenny, Sui Mak, and Roy Williams. “The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC.” Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning 2010. University of Lancaster, 2010.

Shall I LOOK at the MOOC?

So this is my first in a series of blog posts over the coming weeks that explores possible avenues for research investigation for the MSc dissertation. Where do I begin? We have studied such a diverse range of interesting topics related to BOE throughout this course. However, I do not want my personal preferences of topic to influence my decision of what area of BOE to explore for the dissertation. Yes, it is important to chosen a topic that is of interest to you, in order to maintain your focus throughout the project and produce research of the highest quality. However, more important than this, in my opinion, is the need to conduct research into topics of BOE from which there is a genuine gap in our current understanding and/or body of literature. That way, I believe there is the greatest opportunity to make a real and significant contribution to the educational research field whilst driving forward our understanding of the BOE domain.

So I have begun my search for a dissertation with an entirely open mind, by searching objectively in Google Scholar for recent studies on “online education research” to see what are the latest trends and identified research gaps for further studies to address. An interesting article by Gasevic et al. (2014) has recently considered the future research directions of the MOOC (massively open online course) within BOE (I thoroughly enjoyed the MOOC that I completed and critiqued for a previous BOE module). This paper, which was published in the peer-reviewed e-journal The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning in 2014, provides a comprehensive overview of the MOOC research domain whilst making a number of key recommendations for future research. One noteworthy suggestion was that “research needs to come up with theoretical underpinnings that will explain factors related to social aspects in MOOCs that have a completely new context and offer practical guidance of course design and instruction” (p. 1). This appears to be a promising potential avenue from which an MSc dissertation could be developed, as it appears to be of substantial scale, it offers a specific research context (social aspects of the MOOC) and has implications for theoretical development and practical application. In the next blog post in this series, I will therefore look at how much research has been conducted into the social aspect of MOOCs and what are the specific gaps in the literature or niche opportunities to be explored.

 

References

Gasevic, Dragan, et al. “Where is research on massive open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC Research Initiative.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15.5 (2014).

 

The aftermath of the Paradigm Wars

 

So, at the end of Week 3 of this final taught module, I have been reading and absorbing the tutorials and recommended reading throughout the week, and attempting to gather together some rational thoughts and reflections of my understandings so far…

 

On reading the Whitehead (2007) article, it seems that the key difference between education and educational research is that, for education research, the perspective is too constricted, too parochial, too short-term. The education researchers are the practitioners – they are the teachers, the tutors, the mentors. Therefore, their interpretation of the research paradigm is more pragmatic and based on what individuals can learn and implement immediately into their practice. Educational research, on the other hand, appears to be more the domain of the researchers, the theorisers, those who perceive the bigger picture of educational research and seek to develop theoretical foundations for the domain. The challenge, as expressed in this article, is that the vast majority of education-related research is driven by the practitioners, not the theorisers, therefore slowing and inhibiting the progression of the field as a theory-driven research domain. In order to reverse this trend, education-related research should be more ambitious and consider what the larger teaching community can learn from the findings of the study, not just those immediately related to the findings.

 

It seems from reading the Denzin and Lincoln (2011) chapter that the paradigm wars of the 1980s has created an atmosphere of “us and them” whereby perceptions of research paradigms have become much more dichotomous and critical. Rather than consider different methodological approaches in terms of their appropriateness and congruence with the research study, as discussed in Tutorial 1, it appears that more emphasis is being placed on subjective (and very often biased) views regarding their academic merits in general, as was the focus of Tutorial 6. The adoption of relativism, as discussed in Tutorial 5 and which lies in the middle of the research paradigm continuum by assuming that it is difficult to gain a clear understanding of the two extremes (posisitivism vs constructionism), appears to be less favoured nowadays as researchers feel compelled to subscribe strongly to one extreme or the other. Thus, Denzin and Lincoln speak of how Positivists “allege that the so-called new experimental qualitative researchers write fiction, not science” (p. 2). This raises the question of at what point does confidence in your own personal epistemological position begin to cloud your judgement and preclude you from considering the potential benefits and relevance of a range of approaches? The fact that both positivism and constructionism paradigms are essentially caricatures with no clearly defined definition, as Tutorial 2 pointed out, adds a further level of obscurity to the situation.

 

The first thing that struck me about the Darlaston-Jones (2007) paper was the honesty of the author in admitting that, despite her insistence that there should be a stronger correlation between the epistemological foundation of the research and the methods used, her own decisions were driven at least partially by the fact that she ‘personally subscribes’ to the constructionist worldview. To what extent should we permit our own personal preferences to dictate our choice of paradigm or indeed research methods? As scholars, it is our duty to provide a solid and intellectual rationale for these important decisions. I recently marked down a Masters dissertation where the student had adopted to conduct one focus group of her fellow students – not because it was the most appropriate method of data collection but merely the easiest. The Tutorial 1 video advises that the philosophy of research should perhaps be objectively perceived as a guidepost, from which we will be informed about the most workable methods and the clarity of the associated research design. Darlaston-Jones argues that understanding the relationship between your personal view of reality is vital in terms of then articulating the following logical steps in relation to the chosen epistemology and research methods. I agree with this view, although I believe that your ontological viewpoint should perhaps not be too firmly established as to create any kind of bias towards one particular paradigm. I believe that in order to base your rationale on the realities of the proposed research study in addition to philosophical logic, the practicalities of what you intend to research should very much inform this personal ontological view.

 

References

Darlaston-Jones, D. (2007) The Australian Community Psychologist, 19(1), p19-27

Denzin, Norman K. & Lincoln, Yvonna S., (2011) “Chapter 1 : Introduction, the discipline and practice of qualitative research” from N/A, The Sage handbook of qualitative research pp.1-19, Thousand Oaks:

Whitehead, J. (2007), Article 3, Research Intelligence, British Educational Research Association, Vol 100, p17.

 

The journey begins… Again!

Hello again. Long time no see. After a year and a half hiatus, Joe Blogg’s Boe Blog is officially back in business! I thoroughly enjoyed writing this blog for Module 2, and I’m excited by the prospect of incorporating it into my thought processes in this final taught module as I prepare the ground work for the BOE Masters dissertation next year. Yes it will be therapeutic in terms of gathering my thoughts, but what do I intend to get out the blog this time around? Previously, I set out a number of objectives that I wanted to achieve in my first blog series, which turned out to be a good strategy as I was then able to revisit them at the end and summarize how I’d achieved my goals. I am hoping to step things up during this module with more regular blog posts – previously I made one post per week but I would like to ideally make 3 posts per week this time around. Will I succeed? Time will tell, but for now I will use the following goals to (hopefully) be constantly addressing these points on a weekly basis:

1. Reflections on learning materials around educational research. As reading is so central to this module, this will be a key aspect that I hope to reflect on each week. However, my reflections will also draw upon other materials that I am given, such as the podcasts and videos, in addition to educational materials that I source myself through my own exploration. Each post will most likely have a common theme that will draw together the sources that I have explored that week.
2. Research method investigation. Each week I will study in detail one particular academic source (mostly like a journal article) on education in terms of the research method used, and the subsequent results. I will be critical in my evaluation of its appropriateness to the research area, and my thoughts around its suitability for use in my dissertation.
3. Research topic exploration for the dissertation. For this I will be reading the latest (2017) journal articles on education research, in order to identify gaps in the current body of research/literature that may represent avenues for empirical investigation in my dissertation. Needless to say, I want my dissertation not only to be academically interesting but to also address an important research area that has not been adequately addressed to date. My discussion of potential gaps as I identify them will therefore inform my chosen dissertation topic, as well as reflect on the other two points of the key topics in education research and which method would be appropriate for me developing this idea for the dissertation.

That’s all for now but I will be back soon with the first of what shall be many more blog posts from me over the coming weeks and months.

Jordan

The journey ends…

Hello and welcome to (sadly) the final blog post from yours truly, Joe Bloggs. In this summary post I will be looking back at my journey over the past ten weeks and thinking about how far I, as a student and a teacher, have come. In fact, let’s go right back to my first post “The journey begins” (https://jgamblesite.wordpress.com/2016/02/02/humble-beginnings/) from 2^nd February (such a long time ago now…). In this introductory post I provided three key objectives which I wanted to achieve in this blog series:

• To create a weekly post consisting of 500-1000 words;
• To focus each post around a particular theme;
• To incorporate readings from a wide pool of resources – not only what the Module 2 (and indeed Module 1) recommended reading had to say, but also other academic /non-academic information sources.

 

To show how I have achieved these objectives, I will now provide a summary of this “journey” – showing how each weekly blog post theme has linked to the next, which information sources have been my inspiration and what I have learned as a BOE student.

 

Strength in numbers? The perils and pitfalls of online learning communities in supporting students.

 

This post explored online communities in terms of how they relate to supporting students in TEL. As well as describing my own experiences of social media communities, I drew on the U1E3 SBOSE podcast (and in particular the guest speaker James Blake) regarding the opportunities for students/staff with time constraints and feedback. I also considered academic literature from, amongst others, Kamenetz (2010) regarding the introduction of online community tools, as well as a report by Contact North (2013) on what are the inherent types of support available and how the role of the teacher represents a critical determining factor in moderating these online learning communities.

 

Professor Plum to Inspector Gadget? The changing role of the teacher in modern learning environments

 

This post focussed on the previously identified topic of the teacher/tutor role in supporting students in BOE, in which I took inspiration from both the U2E1 SBOSE podcast and a promotional video for the Connections Education Academy (https://youtu.be/64449kcUj-0) in order to create a mock job advertisement for a BOE teacher which highlighted the extent of the role in terms of essential qualities and duties. By discussing my own reflections on the various role elements, the opinions in other students’ blog posts and some key literature arguments such as the suggestion from Kuswara et al. (2008) that teachers must relinquish some intellectual authority and become less instructive, I learned about the important (and ongoing) debates surrounding the teacher role in BOE and the inherent types of support associated with this changing role.

 

Illusion or reality? The use of freedoms and control by online tutors as support mechanisms for students

 

This post addressed questions which were raised in the two previous blog posts regarding what are the different types of support that teachers provide in online learning settings.  The first key sub-topic I considered was the prospect of granting freedom to students, in which I took guidance from the pedagogic literature where some authors such as O’Hare (2011) espoused the control relinquishment argument, whilst others such as Lee and Yau (2015) emphasised the opportunities for teachers to monitor both performance and e-textbook access data by maintaining control through cloud computing. After providing context for these polarising views through my own experiences I also considered the topic of control over online tools, in which McLoughlin and Lee (2007) warned about potential associated controlling behaviour, whereas I reflected upon my own BOE experiences to provide a counter-argument. I also considered a blog post by another student who raised the importance of considering the long-term consequences of using freedoms/controls to support students.

 

Elois or Morlocks? A journey through time towards a balanced view of future online learning practices

 

This blog post advanced the previous post’s identification of the future tense of online learning by taking the concept of The Time Machine by H. G. Wells and writing a short sci-fi story (featuring students and teachers from the course as characters!) involving the positive (Elois) and negative (Morlocks) potential future of BOE learning practices.  I also took inspiration from a YouTube video entitled “Shift Happens” (https://youtu.be/PcZg51Il9no) which demonstrated the true concerns over the technological advancement of knowledge and learning practices. In the story, when the Time Traveller visited the Elois, they advocated the positive future BOE practices by referencing predictions from the literature, for example the suggestion by De Freitas and Liarokapis (2011) that all future learning will involve game-based, immersive and interactive elements. Likewise, when the Time Traveller met the Morlocks, their pessimistic viewpoints were also inspired by predictions from the pedagogic literature, such as the suggestion by Downes (2006) that future personal learning environments will be owned by the students and not controlled by educational institutions.

 

Too much of a good thing? Coping with information overload in online learning environments

 

This blog post took inspiration from Anne’s feedback comments on the previous ‘Time Machine’ post in which she inferred that the real threat facing today’s BOE students relates to mass produced knowledge. The post therefore explored the aspect of information overload and whether or not there is truth to the arguments that more quantity invariably means less quality. I considered what was discussed in the literature, including an argument by Huang et al. (2011) that students are pressurised to exposed themselves to a saturation of online resources over short periods of time, and ultimately identified a key underlying issue relating to the (in)ability to navigate through all the available information. I also took inspiration from the talk by Dr Aileen Wood at the “Leap Into Research” conference which I attended on 2^nd March, and ultimately learned about the individual needs of students and the importance of cultural considerations.

 

Lending a helping hand? The global reach of student support in culturally diverse online learning environments

 

In this blog post I developed my understanding of cultural diversity in supporting students in BOE, as identified in the previous post. For this I considered the blog posts of other students, as well as the list of tools which culturally diverse students derive benefits from, according to Fry and Bryant (2006). However, I questioned the real benefits of some of these tools by raising the political limitations which certain international students would face and bringing in some of my own experiences in teaching international students. I considered the suggestion by Lamas et al. (2013) that emphasised the diverse styles/needs of students and acknowledged the fundamental question of which are the most effective online tools for supporting students.

 

The sharpest tool in the box? Considering online tools in supporting BOE students

 

This blog post built upon the previous by advancing the aspect of online tools from the perspective of effectiveness and relevancy. In this post I began with my own reflections of using various tools through this BOE course and other academic circumstances, as well as considering the appraisals in the literature – such as Fu et al. (2013) who unilaterally espouse wiki-based tools or Millar and Schrier (2015) who provide more balanced views on the strengths/weaknesses of e-textbook tools. I also considered the importance of online tool utilisation in isolation in which I concluded that they should be perceived in terms of their overall application due to their context-specific nature. Lastly, I took inspiration from Stewart (2010) who detailed the implications of online tools for students in terms of information sharing.

 

Sharing is caring? Some thoughts on learning-by-sharing as an approach to online student support

 

This penultimate post (and final topic-based post) developed the previous blog’s affordance topic of information sharing and considered this approach in more detail in terms of supporting students in TEL. Here I provided reflections on my own learning experiences which were significantly lacking in information sharing opportunities and questioned whether or not these degree courses would be offered differently (i.e. with more sharing aspects) today. I also explored the blog post of another student who discussed how trust and comfort is associated with this sharing culture in education, as well as considering an influential quotation from the literature in which Mansour et al. (2013) talked in detail about truthfulness validation. This post also highlighted how many of the sub-topics raised (such as the need for a degree of tutor involvement in content provision and synergistic quality enhancement of shared content) had been previously discussed in my earlier blog posts – thereby underscoring the interconnected nature of the themes which I have discussed throughout this blog post series. I hope that in doing so, all those of you who have stuck with these posts to the end of this journey have enjoyed the story of my learning process as I have tackled some of the key topics relating to supporting students in online learning. I know that I have.

The end.

 

References

Contact North (2013) “How to Prepare and Moderate Online Discussions for Online Learning” http://teachonline.ca/sites/default/files/tools-trends/downloads/how_to_plan_for_and_moderate_online_discussions.pdf 1-13.

de Freitas, S., & Liarokapis, F. (2011). Serious games: a new paradigm for education?. In Serious games and edutainment applications (pp. 9-23). Springer London.

Downes, S. (2006) ‘The student’s own education’, webcast seminar at Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK, 5 June 2006.

Fry, S. W., & Bryant, C. (2006). Using distance technology to sustain teacher education for student teachers in isolated areas: The technology supported induction network. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,23(2), 63-69.

Fu, H. J., Chu, S., & Kang, W. X. (2013) Affordances and Constraints of a Wiki for Primary-school Students’ Group Projects. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (4), 85–96.

Huang, T.-C., Huang, Y.-M., & Yu, F.-Y. (2011). Cooperative Weblog Learning in Higher Education: Its Facilitating Effects on Social Interaction, Time Lag, and Cognitive Load. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (1), 95–106.

Kamenetz, Anya, (2010) “Chapter 4 : Computer science”, Kamenetz, Anya, DIY U : edupunks, edupreneurs, and the coming transformation of higher education, 81-107, Chelsea Green Publishing

Kuswara, A., Cram, A., & Richards, D. (2008) Web 2.0 supported collaborative learning activities: Towards an affordance perspective. In Proceedings of the 3rd International LAMS & Learning Design Conference (pp. 70-80).

Lamas, D., Välyataga, T., Laanpere, M., Rogalevich, V., Arakelyan, A., Sousa, S., & Shmorgun, I. (2013) Foundations for the Reconceptualization of the e-Textbook. In International Conference on e-Learning (p. 510). Academic Conferences International Limited.

Lee, H. J., & Yau, K. L. A. (2015) Addressing the major Information Technology challenges of electronic textbooks. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 55(2), 40-47.

Mansour, O., Askenäs, L., Ghazawneh, A. (2013) Social Media and Organizing: An Empirical Analysis of the Role of Wiki Affordances in Organizing Practices. In: Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan 2013

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2007) Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 664-675).

Millar, M. & Schrier, T. (2015) Digital or Printed Textbooks: Which do Students Prefer and Why?, Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 15 (2) 166-185.

O‘Hare, S. (2011) The role of the tutor in online learning. In ASCILITE-Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference (Vol. 2011, No. 1, pp. 909-918).

Stewart, V. (2010). A classroom as wide as the world. Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world, 97-114.

Sharing is caring? Some thoughts on learning-by-sharing as an approach to online student support

Leadership with education

Hello and welcome to the penultimate (boo!) blog post by Joe Bloggs in which I’ll be presenting the final theme of the blog series before wrapping everything up into a neat little bundle next week. And so what have I chosen for this final blog post theme? Well, for those attentive souls out there, you will remember that last week I identified the topic of learning-by-sharing and raised the question of the validity of this approach and the implications for teachers and students.

So does the sharing of content between students in online environment constitute an effective learning strategy? And how does this affect the teacher-student role? Well, from my own learning background as an undergraduate, postgraduate and doctoral student I have to admit that the vast majority of my learning approach was autonomous in nature and I therefore didn’t have many opportunities to share content with other students. Did I miss a trick there? Well to some extent it depends on the context of the subject matter. My undergraduate degree was in Music / Popular Music which necessitated a significant amount of ‘along time’ in order to compose and practise my instrument. For my Master’s Degree in Marketing we had a block structure to our modules which consisted of 8-hour, 3-day intensive lectures for each module, followed by several weeks at home to complete the assignment before moving onto the next module. Even my doctoral degree encountered a proverbial dead end in the content sharing stakes due to the originality and ‘niche’ of my research topic. Would these degree courses have involved more sharing elements if they had been blended or online courses? Quite possibly and I suspect that in the very near future these same courses will involve both more online elements and content sharing facilities.

So what is the big deal with the sharing of content and information as a student? Well, in Ella’s blog post from 13th March (https://meatyloafy.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/social-presence-who-are-you-on-line/) entitled “Social presence – who are you on line?” she suggests that the sharing the content can facilitate a sense of trust and comfort from other students who review your content before contributing themselves. I think that this is a pertinent point as there can be issues of insecurity or caution – especially from new students and especially towards tutors who they may perceive as detached from their needs as a student. However, this discussion revisits a theme I discussed in an earlier post regarding the need for a certain degree of tutor involvement in the content provision in order to maintain quality levels which challenge and drive student excellence (https://jgamblesite.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/too-much-of-a-good-thing-coping-with-information-overload-in-online-learning-environments/). This issue has also been recently raised by Mansour et al. (2013) in their statement about truthfulness validation:

“Validation as an affordance describes possibilities related to verifying the truthiness of both content and content contributors. It is often enacted when people try in various ways to validate whether content shared on a wiki is true and whether content contributors possess the right background and level of expertise to make a contribution” (p. 14).

So, with the quality or indeed truthfulness of shared content potentially representing a matter of contention for online learning, should we, as educators, be recommending it? Well, this still appears to be the case, judging from the veneration of the concept in recent pedagogic journal publications. For instance, Goodyear (2003) argues that group-based educational activities can actually help to share the cognitive load, depending on the optimisation of the skill mix within the group. This topic of synergistic quality enhancement of shared content through ‘strength in numbers’ was explored in another of my previous blog posts (https://jgamblesite.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/strength-in-numbers-the-perils-and-pitfalls-of-online-learning-communities-in-supporting-students/) and demonstrates the interconnectedness of these student support topics. Another advocate of the learning-by-sharing approach is Wang (2007) who describes how the social presence and associated sharing (of both information and resources) leads to the construction of new knowledge in virtual learning environments. The creation of new knowledge from shared knowledge is certainly an innovative approach and I believe that it could be the key to future effective learning strategies when facilitated and supported by tutors in BOE courses.

Like the other blog posts in this series, I have attempted to not only provide a balanced discussion between my own personal reflections and literature reviews, but also in terms of positive and negative aspects of the chosen blog topic. In doing so with this post, I have also highlighted the correlations between this blog theme of learning-by-sharing and the previous topics explored over the past several weeks. This naturally brings us to next week’s final post in which I will reflect on the thematic progression of my blog post series and what I have learned from each topic about supporting the online learner. Stay tuned.

 

References

Goodyear, Peter, (2003) “Chapter 4 : Psychological foundations for networked learning ” from Steeples, C. and Jones, C., Networked Learning: Perspectives and Issues pp.49-75, London: Springer-Verlag

Mansour, O., Askenäs, L., Ghazawneh, A. (2013) Social Media and Organizing: An Empirical Analysis of the Role of Wiki Affordances in Organizing Practices. In: Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan 2013

The sharpest tool in the box? Considering online tools in supporting BOE students

Hello and welcome to this week’s blog post by yours truly – Joe Bloggs. Last week I looked at cultural diversity considerations in the support of students in BOE, in which I considered the ever-expanded list of online tools and the extent to which cultural/political factors influence student opportunities to benefit from them. However, in more general terms, I still wonder which tools are actually more suitable and relevant to supporting the students and how important are tools in driving student support in the online learning environment? Well, my fellow BOE-ers, this is the focus of this week’s blog post.

My personal feelings towards online tools are initially met with a healthy dose of trepidation on account of my minimalistic use of them for purely academic purposes. In fact, many online tools such as WebEx conference calling, Moodle forum discussions and online blogs represented entirely new experiences for me when I made use of them for this BOE course. However, my primary feelings of unease and uncertainty over the “unknown” have actually transgressed into feelings of comfort and support, as I’ve acknowledged the WebEx and Moodle tools especially as channels for which I can derive interaction-based support from both the course tutors and fellow students. Even the blog posts have incorporated a support element because it provides the facility for feedback and comments from teachers and students alike – and I have received and appreciated this type of engaged support via this tool. My experiences of these and other tools revisit my first question of what are the most suitable and relevant tools for supporting students? Are there actually universally recognised preferential tools or is it invariably arbitrary? Often, the pedagogic literature naturally gravitates towards the merits of one tool or another. For instance, Fu et al. (2013) expounded the virtues of wiki-based tools by describing them as beneficial for younger learners in the context of collaborative tasks and enhancing their learning interests. Alternatively, McLoughlin and Lee (2007) focus their veneration on blogs – which they describe as enabling “the affordances of idea sharing and interaction” (p. 666) (echoing my own sentiments regarding the engagement aspect of this support tool).

Millar and Schrier (2015) initially advocate the use of the e-textbook tool by suggesting that educators can use it to engage with students on multiple levels. However, they also concede that “if students are not willing to be engaged, the only way to change that behavior is to try to learn why the students are not engaged” (pp. 167-168). This point highlights my second (and arguably more pertinent) question of how important in practice are these tools when considered in isolation? The truth, as insinuated by Millar and Schrier, is that these tools are often context-specific and should perhaps be considered from the perspective of their overall application in practice. For example, Stewart (2010) envisions the contextual implications of online tools for students as supporting them in terms of overcoming geographical barriers, facilitating real time interactions and sharing information such as media and opinions. To me this final particular affordance signifies a key attribute as I also strongly feel that my new experiences of certain tools have opened the gates to learning-by-sharing as a new and innovative approach to student support functions. But is learning-by-sharing in BOE the best approach and what are the implications for students and teachers? Well that, folks, will be the subject of next week’s blog post. Stay tuned.

 

References

Fu, H. J., Chu, S., & Kang, W. X. (2013) Affordances and Constraints of a Wiki for Primary-school Students’ Group Projects. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (4), 85–96.

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2007) Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007, 664-675.

Millar, M. & Schrier, T. (2015) Digital or Printed Textbooks: Which do Students Prefer and Why?, Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 15 (2) 166-185.

Stewart, V. (2010). A classroom as wide as the world. Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world, 97-114.

Lending a helping hand? The global reach of student support in culturally diverse online learning environments

Hello and welcome to this week’s Joe Bloggs blog post in which I am attempting to tentatively explore the somewhat sensitive and potential controversial issue of (gulp) cultural diversity when supporting students in BOE! Certainly the worldwide reach of technology in the digital age has fundamentally globalised many industries and proverbially thrown off the geographical shackles of their potential markets. But how has this affected educational support for students who can now access blended and online learning courses from any part of the world (or at least those that provide Internet access and the freedom to study)?

Penny provided a student perspective in her online blog post “Long and Winding Road” from 25^th February (https://blendedpennyblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/25/long-and-winding-road/) in which she talked of the benefits of using social media tools to “learn from a socially and culturally diverse set of online peers” regarding her own professional development. The question arises as to what extent culturally diverse student peers are able to learn, find support and generally benefit from the same educational opportunities as those from the host country of the TEL course. Fry and Bryant (2006) strongly believe that culturally diverse students do indeed derive benefits from today’s ever-growing list of online tools when utilised for addressing their educational needs of customisation, networking and collaboration. Below are just some of the tools which represent this non-exhaustive list, and the authors who have cited them:

• Blogs
• Wikis
• Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds
• Podcasting
• Social Network websites
• Tag-based folksonomies
• Peer-to-peer (P2P) media sharing tools

(Alexander, 2006; Allen, 2004; McLoughlin and Lee, 2007)

However, despite the insistence above of how international students can invariably benefit from these educational tools, the reality of the situation may actually prove to be significantly different. For instance, with social media channels such as Facebook being proscribed in Communist countries such as China, this would suggest that the social media aspects of online learning, which Penny refers to, may actually represent a hindrance – as opposed to an advantage – to certain overseas students.  However, these political/technological limitations can, to a certain degree, be anticipated and factored into the course design in order to mitigate the risks of disadvantages and unfairness to international students. Indeed, Lamas et al. (2013) suggest that innovative teaching strategies now mean that “new pedagogical models and methods increasingly aim to address students’ different styles and needs” (p. 510).

So how specifically can teachers develop these new models in order to support the increasingly diverse cultures and needs represented by the modern BOE student cohort? Well I believe that the key is to promote cultural sensitivity and understanding and to be able to adapt learning course structures and materials to suit their needs. In my own teaching experience I encountered linguistic student barriers when I gave a guest lecture to a class of undergraduate international students at Edinburgh Napier University. I anticipated this situation and modified the learning content to reflect the limited English language skills of the students, and integrated international examples into the delivery of the material in order to reflect the multi-cultural aspect of the class. In the online learning environment I feel that these qualities can certainly be transferred in order to maintain the personal and inclusionary facets which appeal to a more culturally diverse student population.

This post has raised some questions about not only how we, as educational providers, can support the different needs of culturally diverse students, but also about the legitimacy of online tools in supporting students from different backgrounds. Next week’s blog post will address this issue in more detail by examining what are most effective online tools for supporting students in TEL. Stay tuned.

 

References

Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32–44. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0621.pdf [viewed 18^th March 2016].

Allen, C. (2004). Tracing the evolution of social software. http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/10/tracing_the_evo.html [viewed 18^th March 2016].

Fry, S. W., & Bryant, C. (2006). Using distance technology to sustain teacher education for student teachers in isolated areas: The technology supported induction network. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,23(2), 63-69.

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2007) Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings Ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 664-675).

Lamas, D., Välyataga, T., Laanpere, M., Rogalevich, V., Arakelyan, A., Sousa, S., & Shmorgun, I. (2013) Foundations for the Reconceptualization of the e-Textbook. In International Conference on e-Learning (p. 510). Academic Conferences International Limited.

Too much of a good thing? Coping with information overload in online learning environments

Hello and welcome to this week’s blog by Joe Bloggs. Last week’s post (https://jgamblesite.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/elois-or-morlocks-the-journey-towards-a-balanced-view-of-future-online-learning-practices/) provided a nightmarish depiction of the future in terms of polarising perspectives on the future of BOE practices. The murderous Morlocks did indeed criticise many aspects of this dystopian future, although they failed to consider one critical issue of future TEL that is actually manifested to a certain degree in today’s digital educational landscape. This issue was kindly raised in a feedback comment on the blog post by Anne and relates to information overload or the effects of “mass produced knowledge”; this is the subject of this week’s blog post.

 

So is too much of a good thing a bad thing? It seems to me that the main concern of information overload from the context of TEL or BOE is that there will be a saturation of lower-quality information and that the better quality data may effectively become ‘lost in the ether’. But are these fears justified? Huang et al. (2011) certainly appear to believe so as they both acknowledge cognitive overload as an “issue that has attracted much attention in web-based learning settings” and suggest that it is accounted for by the requirement to expose one’s self to “a surfeit of online resources over a short time” (p. 96). I think that these authors make a salient point that it is the pressures of time constraints in online learning tasks that may play a significant role is the quality lessening argument, when combined with the information overload. Therefore, the key underlying issue correlates to the increased inability to navigate through the volume of information to the high quality data. But is quality the only concern with regard to information overload in TEL? Actually, cultural relevance may also constitute an important factor – especially with the overabundance of data from different cultures/countries/religions around the globe.

 

The other point that Huang et al. (2011) make relates to the alleged attention which this phenomenon is attracting. This leads me to wonder what steps are being taken to mitigate and circumvent the risks inherent in this scenario? Certainly we possess, along with this plethora of new information resource pools, the technological potential to filter and sort the data to meet the stipulations of our research needs. But are these filter/sorting tools improving at a rate consistent with the increase of information overload? On 2^nd March 2016 I attended the “Leap into Research” conference at Edinburgh Napier University (details available at http://blogs.napier.ac.uk/leap-into-research/session-details/) and this specific issue reared its ugly head. The talk by the Leader of External Funding, Dr Aileen Wood, had turned to the use of the Research Professional tool to filter and search through the thousands of global research funding opportunities across a range of disciplines. One of the delegates heavily criticised the tool’s alleged inability to produce relevant results, based on her extensive use of the tool in various searches. My personal experiences of Google Scholar as a tool for filtering and searching for relevant academic journal articles has been much more positive, with new features facilitating advanced searches of specific time ranges, information types, related articles, etc. Indeed, the importance of organisation as a catalyst in informational management is not a new concept in the digital age. For instance, Tan et al. (2003) suggested over 12 years ago that the level of material organisation has a direct impact on the quantity of information that students can absorb and recall. The negative feedback in my recent conference illustrates that this is likely to remain an ongoing bone of contention for the foreseeable future.

 

Paradoxically, I  feel that the solution to this issue of information overload (which has been triggered by technological advancements) is for individuals to develop more technological advancements in their abilities to use and navigate the range of tools search as Research Professional and Google Scholar (to name but a very few…). Indeed, Sibbel (2009) clearly highlights the repercussions of not engaging with the information sorting tools in his caveat that “[t]he limitations of the human processing system for dealing with an overwhelming amount of information add to the problem of providing useful and balanced information” (p. 79).  However, the issue of cultural relevance, as raised above, would perhaps necessitate some additional consideration. Consequently, next week’s blog post will explore cultural diversity and its effects on – and how it is affected by – the global/local aspects of BOE. Stay tuned.

 

References

Huang, T.-C., Huang, Y.-M., & Yu, F.-Y. (2011). Cooperative Weblog Learning in Higher Education: Its Facilitating Effects on Social Interaction, Time Lag, and Cognitive Load. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (1), 95–106.

Sibbel, A. (2009) “Pathways towards sustainability through higher education.”International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 10 (1) 68-82.

Tan, O. S., Richard, D. P., Stephanie, L. H., & Deborah, S. B. (2003). Educational psychology: A practitioner-research approach, Taiwan: Cengage Learning Asia.