Month: December 2017

The readings for this week Assessing d.learning: Capturing the Journey of Becoming a Design Thinker (Goldman et al., 2012) and Innovation and Change: Changing How we Change (Dron, 2014) both had a lot of food for thought.

In the first article, Goldman et al. (2012) show how design thinking can be assessed. Their journey through various assessment types showed that you really have to think outside the box. Standard assessments would typically be able to adopt a form of a rubric, but when looking at mindshifts as described by the authors the type of rubric needed was a quandary. The changing viewpoints were best captured through action and therefore performance-based assessment was tried. The idea of the mindshift is something that resonates with me as I do not believe in the hard-wiring of individuals, but we all have our own personal skills and tasks with which we excel at. Intellectual risk taking is also another term that comes to mind and relates closely. An intellectual risk taker will experience mindshifts which will hopefully spur innovation and new thinking. The challenge with assessment comes with how do you know whether the process has been successful or not? How do you measure ingenuity? How much does the process matter?

The second article titled Changing How we Change (Dron, 2014) reminds me of why change is difficult. The barriers to adoption of new technology mentioned: resources, institution, subject culture, attitudes/beliefs, knowledge/skills, and assessment are all prevalent in my organization. I felt that Dron was channeling my thoughts and I found out why since as I read I found that the example used was in relation to K-12, which is where I’m currently employed in (seems like it is the same everywhere). Disruption in of itself is going to ruffle some feathers. Technology is meant to change things. Institutions are not open to change, but run the risk of being left behind. Of course there needs to be a plan of transition and plenty of supports to go with it. First it all begins with a change in mindset towards technology, or maybe a mindshift…

 

References

Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.

Goldman, S. et al. (2012). Assessing d.learning: Capturing the journey of becoming a design thinker. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel & L. Leifer (eds). Design thinking research: Understanding innovation. (pp. 13-33). Berlin: Springer.

As we progressed through the design thinking process (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016), both my partner and I quickly found that we shared similar problems in our respective organizations. The problem that we sought to solve involved trying to include and empower adult students with English as a Second Language and adult students with minimal technological background within hybrid (blended) courses taught at our respective institutions. We found that students in either scenario (or both) were likely to be reclusive in the online environment or not be receptive to the style of learning that an online format provides. As we worked through the process, two components emerged as potential solutions that dig into what we believe to be the root of the issue.

Enhancing online teacher training to incorporate empathy and seeking to understand and negate negative feelings toward technology was the first solution we found. As researched by Vann (2017), online course design is very different from face-to-face course design and sometimes instructors do not have the same level of empathy toward their adult learners. She found that 87% of online students perceived lack of empathy from their online instructors when compared to face-to-face instructors. Vann also found that sometimes the best way to get instructors to have empathy and to understand the process is to actually put them through an online learning course so they can experience firsthand the obstacles that their students might have as online adult learners. We believe that creating an introductory online learning course for the instructors before starting and teaching their online course can give the instructors the tools, experience, and knowledge they need to be able to understand their students better and to identify with them in order to have a connection and be able to empathize.

Making adult students more comfortable with technology and to be able to learn at the same level as more tech-savvy students is the other solution that we found. We believe that this can be achieved by utilizing group activities through virtual discussions during the course. As stated by Seay (2006), adult students can be more successful in their online course when they are provided with a virtual study group or discussion forum so they can discuss their issues with their instructor or help each other understand the material. When adults are paired through virtual group activities with other students that have more technological knowledge, they can overcome challenges such as lack of confidence/familiarity with technology. Online discussions can help them learn from their peers. Also, it would be easier for them to reach out to the instructors for direction if they have more options to communicate.

While there were other components that we had come up with, we believe these two solutions: 1) Increasing teacher training with focus on empathy and 2) Creating a more social environment for students, are the best ways to start in making an inclusive online learning community. These solutions are specifically targeted to the unique demographics at our respective organizations. We hope that when teachers are comfortable using technology and can empathize with the unique backgrounds of their students, they can then create the inclusive system where students of any background or level can be successful and engage to their full extent.

References:

Seay, S. (2006). Strategies for success: Improving the academic performance of low-Income adult and first-Generation students in online general education courses. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 54(3), 22-35. doi:10.1080/07377366.2006.10401222

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). A virtual crash course in design thinking.

Vann, L. S. (2017). Demonstrating empathy: A phenomenological study of instructional designers making instructional strategy decisions for adult learners. International Journal Of Teaching & Learning In Higher Education, 29(2), 233-244.