Karen's Blog – Page 2 – A MALAT Student Blog

Leading with Energy and Enthusiasm

Continual technological advances permeate everything we do, in work and in play. By continuing to accept a “head in the sand mentality” (Sheninger, 2014, p. 1) toward implementing new or renewed approaches in digital learning environments (DLEs), leaders deny their teams the ability to the develop the capacity needed to succeed when technological advances shift their environment. For teams to be successful in today’s ever-changing environments, they need leaders who collaborate to create a shared vision of success, who model open communication and who embrace a continuous improvement mindset.

My Leadership Approach:
Early in my leadership journey I was introduced to Simon Sinek’s (2011) “Golden Circle” concept, which guides leaders to inspire action by helping teams to articulate not just what they do every day, or how they complete tasks in their role, but why their work is important within their organization’s context. Although I didn’t realize it at the time, I can now see that Sinek’s work introduced me to one of my core leadership approaches, wherein I start work with a new team by encouraging collaboration. By teasing out and exploring individual perspectives, I support the team to shape a compelling shared vision of the future, resulting in team members who are united by a common purpose (O’Toole, 2008).

Much of my leadership experience has been gained through project-based work, wherein I parachute into an existing team to lead the implementation of a new or renewed approach to service delivery. By consistently modeling open communication, individual team members are motivated to contribute, as they trust that their perspectives will be valued (Castelli, 2017). This helps to set the foundation of a safe environment.

Throughout my leadership experiences, I have consistently found that some of the best ideas arise through ongoing environmental scans that include the divergent perspectives of all team members, (Huggins, Klar, Hammonds & Buskey, 2017) and that valuable lessons can be uncovered from feedback during or after project implementation. Co-owning triumphs and challenges supports a shared approach that promotes trust, values open communication, connects work to the organization’s mission, and builds self-esteem and confidence in the workforce (Castelli, 2016). I believe that debriefing what was learned throughout the life-cycle of a project further supports the continual development of a shared vision and demonstrates a commitment to continuous improvement.

Since organizational priorities shift, core to my leadership approach is supporting my team members to develop confidence in their individual leadership capacity. This takes an enthusiastic commitment to mindfully create “leadership opportunities” (Huggins et al., 2017, p. 8) for all team members. Doing so follows a distributed leadership approach and requires sustained energy and a tolerance for risk. Although it is true that a team member may make mistakes, which could negatively reflect on my leadership, my experience in distributing leadership across all desks has led to innovative ideas for program or service delivery.

Leading in Digital Environments:
I agree with Sheninger (2014) when he states that “leaders need to be the catalysts for change” (p. 4), especially when leading in digital learning environments. Leaders must also realize that each team member is different, with resistance to embracing technology running along a continuum from those who refuse to participate to early adopters. Like Sheninger (2014) describes, leading through technology changes requires that leaders understand that learners may have a fear around using technology to complete tasks. By encouraging collaboration, team members share their collective knowledge and are better able to adapt in changing environments (Khan, 2017).

Technology changes rapidly, so leading in a digital learning environment requires leaders to prioritize the development of agile teams. Leaders who work with their teams to set a shared vision help to support ever-changing DLEs by developing ongoing team capacity, as evidenced in Castelli (2016), where “the legacy of the leader’s influence is perpetuated through the followers’ incorporation of legacy principles into their lives as they become leaders” (p. 220).

Building leadership capacity at all levels helps to increase organizational capacity and tolerance to change. Sustainable change in DLEs requires that leaders empower teams and embrace technology through a strategic mindset that improves desired outcomes by leveraging available resources (Sheninger, 2014). By working to engage all stakeholders of an organization through open communication, collaboration and a commitment to continuous improvement, leaders in digital environments lay the groundwork for teams to share leading practices and to work with a common purpose. Doing so helps individuals to confidently make decisions in their work, as all decisions are framed within a shared compelling vision, regardless of shifts in technology or organizational priorities.

Conclusion:
Successful leaders adopt the approaches that their teams need to succeed. Using a values-based leadership framework supports the development of a team’s leadership capacity. When leaders support decisions that are important to members of the group, team members are motivated, as the leader helps “them to realize the things they hold most dear, that which they value” (O’Toole, 2008, p. 2). Values based leadership creates a common language of behaviour that cements the team’s purpose, setting the vision of how work is completed and how services are delivered.

By consistently acting on behalf of the team, a leader provides the conditions and resources that the team needs to succeed, but that they couldn’t provide on their own (O’Toole). Distributing leadership throughout a team also helps to develop the team’s leadership capacity, building each person’s confidence to share leading practices and to support one another. As Huggins et al (2017) describe, leadership development is a process that requires leadership capacity builders to direct, monitor and provide feedback. Leaders that consistently practice reflection ask what was learned throughout and after project completion.

As I continue my leadership development journey, I will be mindful to continue focusing on encouraging collaboration, practicing open communication and embracing a continuous improvement mindset. These core principles, coupled with mindful implementation of values-based, distributed and reflective leadership practices will work in concert to provide the foundation that our teams need to successfully sustain technological and organizational shifts.

References

Castelli, P. (2016). Reflective leadership review: a framework for improving organisational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 217-236.

Huggins, K., Klar, H. W., Hammonds, H. L., & Buskey, F. C. (2017). Developing Leadership Capacity in Others: An Examination of High School Principals’ Personal Capacities for Fostering Leadership. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 12(1).

Khan, N. (2017). Adaptive or Transactional Leadership in Current Higher Education: A Brief Comparison. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3).

O’Toole, James (2008). Notes Toward a Definition of Values-Based Leadership. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 1(1).

Sheninger, E. (2014). Pillars of digital leadership. International Centre for Leadership in Education.

Sinek, S. (2011). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. Penguin.

Embracing Outliers in Learner Experience

Advances in digital technology tools have significantly impacted learning and teaching processes in the last few decades. Each day there seems to be a new tool which promises to improve the learning environment or learner experience, and I find myself tasked to evaluate which of the available tools are most effective in positively impacting how our learners embrace and experience the courses we design. While maintaining a realistic focus on organizational priorities and capacity, I find myself balancing using efficient, harder learning interventions compared to allowing for softer interventions.

Currently we are working to implement a blended learning approach in our organization. This renewed approach will include both on-line and in-person components, which is in contrast to existing practices where learners are required to choose between either on-line or in-person learning interventions. When viewing our proposed renewed approach through a learner’s lens, I can empathize that using non-routine, disruptive technologies that may be unfamiliar may be perceived as unnecessary. Will the learning experience be improved by using a blended approach and will it meet the needs of all of our learners?

I appreciate Dron’s (2014) suggestion that technologies can be perceived as hard or soft, depending on the learner’s digital technology competency. For some learners, accessing a self-paced course allows access course materials when their schedule permits, thereby allowing them to set their own pace for learning. For others, accessing unfamiliar technology is stressful, as they lack digital literacy skills. As Dron (2014) outlines, core to the success of instigating innovation is determining the best time and method to implement a new or renewed idea so that it is adopted seamlessly into the learning environment and becomes routine. I am left with the task of further exploring this core consideration as we move forward in implementing our renewed, blended approach.

Dron (2014) suggests that changes in distance education occur due to a complex set of conditions. The condition that resonated with me was “path dependencies caused by earlier decisions” (Dron, 2014, p. 238). In our learning environment we have used the same set of principles and tools for about a decade. By reducing learner choice through continually developing courses using an inflexible set of design principles and processes, our learners may be left with less choice, which could reduce “opportunities for creativity, innovation and change” (Dron, 2014, p. 241).

Motivating factors are linked directly to learner success, with a common motivation linking the investment of time and money to the expectation of career progression or increased occupational opportunities. Our learners are mandated to complete learning interventions so that they can maintain their professional designation. However, each learner works in a unique business model and has different needs and motivation for attending learning interventions.

The core goal that I take from Dron’s (2014) article is that our organization should further explore trends in the experiences shared by study participants with the intention of identifying the most effective intervention tools, supports and resources used. Perhaps by mindfully exploring outliers in learner feedback data sets, as opposed to commonalities, we may uncover evidence that refutes our preferred design practices. From there, we can consider the best approach in designing and implementing new or renewed approaches to course development.

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.

LRNT 524 (Assignment #1A) Design Challenge and Student Communication Tool

In this exercise, Donna Baker and I applied the Design Challenge to develop a tool designed to support learners in generating ideas that help them take intellectual risks in digital learning environments.

If you would like to participate as a critical friend for Donna and me, please post your comments on Donna’s blog post.

Our method

Before starting the challenge, we clarified the purpose and process together, including sharing reflections from past courses and experiences.

What worked…

The interview section helped us to gain a general overview of the other person’s position, and a more concrete awareness of our own experiences.
The timed interventions pushed us to stay on task and to focus on generating unfinished ideas, as opposed to finessing content.
Digging deeper provided context and allowed us to check in with the other person to clarify meaning and gain empathy and trust through reflection.
Working synchronously in the same document and watching the other person share their raw ideas served as a spontaneously generated way to understand their thought patterns and empathize with their experience.

What we developed based on what we learned…

Based on the exploration and application of our respective experiences, we developed an experiential learning tool (Crichton, S. & Carter, D. 2017) for learners to use for planning a systematic method for taking intellectual risks when interacting with their colleagues online. Learners consider both their purpose and audience to help frame their interactions, and apply several techniques to mindfully plan and develop interactions through a series of checklists. After piloting the use of all suggested techniques, learners reflect on what worked, and develop a shortlist of proven techniques that they can use to support them in taking intellectual risks in digital learning environments. Providing a proven method for success in a digital learning environment enhances their student experience, and contributes to their self-regulated learning capabilities (Winne, 2013).

Conclusion

Our experience was successful overall. We have two ideas for future improvement:

Our interactions were solely text-based. If we used visual tools that more readily capture abstract ideas, such as mind mapping or process mapping tools, would we have arrived at different conclusions?
The individual interaction steps felt forced, as intended. Would the use of an audible timer to provide an x-second warning help to give a sense of closure to the individual interventions? We found that we were often in the middle of a good idea when the timer went off, which caused us to “switch off” and begin to think about the next task, as opposed to fully formulating and sharing our idea.

Questions…

We have a few additional questions regarding the process of mindfully exploring intellectual risk taking using the Design Challenge framework:

How well would the interactions work based on pre-existing relationships? Would your current perceptions of someone that you know well influence your interactions?
Would the process work differently with a complete stranger? And how would that be influenced by how the facilitator worked to develop a safe learning environment, such as establishing group norms, defining roles, and clarifying expectations?
Would our perceived success of the experience have been different if we hadn’t participated in, researched, or read about the processes we examined?

For your review and comments…

Click the link below to review a copy of the intellectual risk-taking tool we developed through the Design Challenge. We welcome your review and insights.

Click here to view our plan.

Note: We have produced an interactive PDF document. You can view the document’s contents via the Dropbox link, but must download the file in order to activate the interactive elements.

References

Crichton, S. & Carter, D. (2017). Taking Making into Classrooms Toolkit. Open School/ITA.

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

Winne, P. H. (2013). Learning Strategies, Study Skills, and Self-Regulated Learning in Postsecondary Education. In Paulsen, M. B. (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 377–403). Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5836-0

Activity 7: The Media Debate

Introduction

The debate over how media does or does not influence learning continues to be lively and divisive in the learning community of today. While Kozma and Clark’s articles are antiquated in 2017, they continue to carry a valuable voice that should serve as a warning to institutions looking to purchase and integrate the latest new technology. From a BYOD program in British Columbia aimed at allowing students flexibility in their preferred learning platform, to building communities in on YouTube that encourage sharing experiences, learning still appears to be fundamentally unchanged by technology. Speed of access, economics of delivery and perhaps engagement of the learner show potential benefits, but the mechanism of learning remains the same.

Technology in the classroom: Local school introduces BYOD program

In October 2017 in Kelowna, British Columbia, Aberdeen Hall Preparatory School announced a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) program, which plans to use tools that learners are already familiar with and comfortable using. Instead of having to learn new operating systems and features, learners can work with educators to learn how to leverage their favoured device to constructively build understanding (Lauzé, 2017). Kozma (1994) describes learning as a process by which the learner “strategically manages available cognitive, physical, and social resources to create new knowledge by interacting with information in the environment and integrating it with information already stored in memory” (p. 3). Educators proposing the BYOD program suggest that allowing learners to study with their preferred device will help them to personalize their education, and shifts teaching and learning towards becoming more social (Lauzé, 2017).

In 1994 Clark remarked that instructional designers are influenced to select the most economic media available that can deliver effective instruction to learners. In 2017, Lauzé shares this remark is still relevant, with schools of today facing the removal of computer labs in the classroom, resulting in an on-going challenge to incorporate technology into existing curriculum. Core to Clark’s (1994) position in the great media debate is that defined learning content and instructional methodology must underlie the curriculum, regardless of media type chosen as a delivery method. Aberdeen Hall educators aim to use technology to “research, create and share information in a way that has not been possible with paper and pencils” (Lauzé, 2017, para 12), and include that they have set out learning goals first, using technology tools to enhance teaching and learning.

Clark’s (1994) stance that instructional designers when developing a learning intervention must consider if using one specific media tool would have a positive impact on learning over another media type. Educators at Aberdeen Hall Preparatory School recognize that they are at the beginning of their journey in integrating technology into the educational system and posit that advances in virtual reality and artificial intelligence technologies may further impact how technology is used in the classroom (Lauzé, 2017).

Top 6 benefits of using technology in the classroom.

This blog post makes a lot of claims as to the effectiveness and necessity of technology in the classroom. Webanywhere is a e-learning provider, and the blog article is no doubt being used as a sales tool for their services. Clark’s 1994 paper is useful in looking at the claims put forth in the blog post.

The main point of Clark’s to consider is “whether there are other media or another set of media attributes would yield similar learning gains” (Clark, 1994). The first claim is about engagement. The author claims that “students can be expected to be more interested” in what is being taught because technology is integrated into the curriculum (Top 6, 2016). This is a pretty bold claim without any proof beyond assumptions that technology “makes learning fun and enjoyable”, and that it encourages active participation in the learning process (Top 6, 2016). Clark (1994) points out that learning gains depend on “adequate instructional methods”, not on media or technology used. Perhaps learners will be engaged by playing a videogame, but the learning depends on what methods are used in teaching. Webanywhere moves on to knowledge retention following the same line of argument that engagement equals learning where Clark’s conclusion is equally applicable.

Webanywhere introduces “Individual Learning” as a benefit of technology claiming that “students can learn at their own speed, review difficult concepts or skip ahead if they need to” (Top 6, 2016). Clark (1994) points out that we need to ask ourselves if this is only possible using a particular medium or new media in general. Surely, anyone reading a book can reread a page or make notes for future reference all at their own speed. Therefore, the claim of Webanywhere, though essentially not false, is nothing particularly special in relation to the topic of educational technology. This same conclusion can be drawn from Webanywhere’s emphasis on collaboration. It is true that collaboration is convenient and cost effective, a point Clark (1994) makes in regards to educational technologies in general, via modern online social mediums, but the internet, for example, does not pre-date collaborative educational experiences.

The blog post goes on to talk about 21st century skills, such as leadership, critical thinking, etc., which are not actually technology based educational skills, they are simply the modern outcomes sought for education in general. Clark doesn’t talk specifically about computer related skills in his article, but I assume he would agree that computers do help people learn how to use computers, to write emails and produce PowerPoint presentations as Webanywhere informs us.

Webanywhere’s final point is about the benefits that technology has for teachers claiming that “technology can improve teaching” (Top 6, 2016) by providing grading and assessment tools which result in time saved so teachers can focus on their students. This is basically what Clark (1994) claims media/technology’s true influence is in education, that it is cost effective and allows things to be done more quickly and efficiently. Also, of note is that Webanywhere returns to it’s claims about collaboration, only this time, between teachers. Though outside of the scope of Clark’s article, I would just like to say I question the need and benefits of “collaboration” in education, whether between students, between teachers, or between students and teachers as much as I question the accepted “wisdom” that “technology makes learning better”. Once again, it depends on the teaching methodology involved just as it does with technology and media in the classroom.

I can’t help but think that any teacher reading this blog article would come away thinking “Technology will solve my problems.”…

Brain gains; Education technology.

In Brain Gains; Educational Technology, Educational technology, or “Edtech”, is recommended as a boon to learning, with some significant caveats. Even though computers have reshaped our lives in almost every way, Edtech has consistently followed a cycle of incredible hype and optimism followed by a cooling and obsolescence. One potential reason for this is the conservatism of both traditional behavioristic teaching methods, and teachers and their unions (The Economist, 2017). In spite of this, contemporary instructional designers are making people rethink the effects of edtech on learning.

One way that edtech can positively affect learning is by making instruction more ubiquitously available, especially in third world countries (The Economist, 2017). Software that personalizes learning to the individual student can raise a student up from an inefficient classroom. Another way that edtech can positively affect learning is by making teaching more efficient. According to The Economist:

In California, schools are using software to overhaul the conventional model. Instead of textbooks, pupils have “playlists”, which they use to access online lessons and take tests. The software assesses children’s progress, lightening teachers’ marking load and giving them insight on their pupils. Saved teachers’ time is allocated to other tasks, such as fostering pupils’ social skills or one-on-one tuition. A study in 2015 suggested that children in early adopters of this model score better in tests than their peers at other schools (2017).

Ultimately, the instructional design is much more important than the delivery method used. The conventional model of schooling, (ie. classrooms, hierarchical groups organized by year, standardized curriculums and fixed timetables) was first used in Prussia in the 18th century, and is still the norm today (The Economist, 2017). Technology can either be a hindrance or a help when delivering well designed instructional material. Most of the research on the effects of media on learning found that the benefits of media were strictly economic, that no delivery medium for learning showed any gains over any other medium.

In light of the astonishingly one-sided evidence, Kozma (1994) stated that the reason media have not influenced learning thus far is because our understanding of the effect of media on learning is lacking. Kozma reworks the question of “Does media influence learning?” to “Will media influence learning?” The problem with Kozma’s thinking is that the future is unknowable. In the event that new research shows a causal effect of media on learning, than the current stance can be revisited. However, as it stands, the research is almost unanimously in favor of media being a delivery method with no benefits to learning. The two studies used by Kozma involve two different learning technologies: ThinkerTools and the Jasper Woodbury Series (Kozma, 1994). Both studies showed an increase in learning from the control groups using the new technology, however, it was unclear whether the same instructional design methods were used in the control and non control groups (Clark, 1994). If different instructional design methods are used, then it’s impossible to see if the instructional design had a benefit on the learning. The future technologies look very promising, as always, but until there is empirical evidence to back up the effects on learning, we must stick to what works.

The effects of learner-generated videos for YouTube on learning outcomes and satisfaction.

This article expresses a dual purpose of media and education. Not only the acquisition of knowledge through video, but how providing an opportunity to show the transfer of knowledge via producing YouTube videos to demonstrate the learner’s comprehension of certain subjects.

“A medium is distinctive to the extent that its defining cluster of attributes is unique, that is, different from the defining clusters of other media. This has two implications for the focus of our theories: We must specify the causal mechanisms by which cognitive and social processes are influenced as students interact with a medium’s defining capabilities (i.e., attributes). And we must specify the appropriate uses of these capabilities (i.e., variables), that is, the ways in which these capabilities may be used to influence the learning for particular students, tasks, and situations.

The second approach discussed by Salomon (1991) is the systemic approach. This approach is based on the assumption that each event, component, or action in the classroom has the potential of affecting the classroom as a whole. These variables act on each other in interdependent ways. Changing one variable may have dramatic and perhaps unanticipated effects as it propagates through the complex web of relationships among variables in the system. The goal of this approach is to describe the patterns of relationships among a system of components and events as they interact and mutually define each other in real situations”.

This article, by using the medium of video in the social media platform of YouTube allows students to interact socially both in person by way of collaboration with teachers and their fellow students and secondly on their own to provide a tangible explanation of what they have learned from the teacher, classmates and other media. There are several advantages to this including having another option to voice their thoughts other than writing, in person oral communicating and testing.

“How often do students generate questions and what kinds are they? Do they use the video to answer these questions? If they do not search the video, is the information that they generate recalled from a previous viewing or is it based on general, world knowledge? If they use information in the video what information is used and how do they search for it? How does this information, in turn, influence subsequent questions or the discourse among students? Research on this project would also benefit from controlled studies in which groups of students receive similar information embedded in text-based or video-based stories. How do students process these stories differently? How do they search them differently? What information do they remember from each and is it structured differently?”

Some of the results show that the perceived benefits were an increase in academic performance and a cross curricular understanding.

Conclusion

In reading and comparing technology advances of the last few years to articles written in 1983 and 1994, it’s easy to draw a conclusion that Clark’s reasoning still proves true. While Kozma’s future state may at some point come to fruition, the future is unknown and today’s technologies continue to fail Clark’s replaceability test. The new media we have developed serves an important and valuable part in being able to share learning resources across larger geographies and diverse demographics, but it still relies heavily on sound instructional design and methodology. Advanced simulations and artificial intelligence could at some point become an extremely economical method of teaching, but it would still only be a replacement of other forms of delivery.

It is vital to understand, especially when choosing to invest in new technologies for instruction, that the work and effort required to develop content will not be reduced. While effective use of the media will undoubtedly increase the potential reach of the material and lower the per participant cost over time, more energy and costs are invested up front to take advantage of the technology.

Works Cited

“Findings from University of Zaragoza Update Understanding of Learning Science and Technology (The effects of learner-generated videos for YouTube on learning outcomes and satisfaction).” Education Letter, 27 Apr. 2016, p. 77. Global Issues in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A450442428/GIC?u=royal_roads&xid=e9eb2c57. Accessed 7 Oct. 2017.

“Brain gains; Education technology.” The Economist, 22 July 2017, p. 9(US). Global Issues in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A498888332/GIC?u=royal_roads&xid=f757ff13. Accessed 9 Oct. 2017.

Kozma, R. (1994). “Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate.” Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Clark, R. E. (1994). “Media will never influence learning.” Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

“Top 6 benefits of using technology in the classroom.” Webanywhere, February 18 2016, Retrieved from: https://www.webanywhere.co.uk/blog/2016/02/top-6-benefits-technology-classroom/

Lauzé, Sarah. Technology in the classroom: Local school introduces BYOD program (2017, Oct 1), KelownaNow. Retrieved from https://www.kelownanow.com/news/news/Sponsored/Technology_in_the_classroom_Local_school_introduces_BYOD_program1/

The above post was a collaboration between five MALAT students – Adam Romano, EJ Tremblay, Keith Williams, Jason Par and Karen Maeers.

Activity 6: Navigating Abundance

What We Investigated

With a limit of sixty minutes each to research our chosen topic of increasing traffic to blog sites, Bobbi and I both witnessed an abundance of content (Weller, 2011), including news articles, videos, infographics, social media groups, books and services for purchase. Topics ranged from those targeted to a novice audience, to others which cataloged and tracked successful blogs and topic influencers. We also found many active newsfeeds and digital environments with participants interested in what seemed to be an endless number of topics.

What We Found and Confidence in Abundance

In an initial search of “drive traffic to blog” resulting findings matched close to fifty million sources, which was overwhelming, even through the lens of this activity. Further refinement of search variables to include only those resources associated with 2017 resulted in over nine million results. We were confident that we had abundant content, but whether it was reliable and valid would take many more hours to determine.

The information provided listed strategies to increase the number of blog visitors. Sources uncovered were targeted to varying user abilities, meaning that a novice personal blogger with lower technology skills could navigate and apply the suggestions provided by some sources. Additionally, more advanced methods and strategies were presented for those with established social media presence, developed navigation skills, and fulsome content knowledge. Dependent on the situation and context, learners have control to choose which strategies are most applicable and to decide how and when to apply them, discriminating the value of the research, and then constructing knowledge.

Navigating the Abundance Uncovered

It is clear that information is more dynamic and accessible in the 21st-century, and that there are skills needed to navigate the abundance of information available. As learners in this vast arena of abundant online content, we reflected upon which search terms and other refinements would uncover relevant and current information. As we dug down with refinements to search criteria, we were able to target our search, but remained overwhelmed with the results and began to question the credibility or value of the sources provided.

Having the ability to access information quickly and effectively is a required transferable skill (Weller, 2011) that supports “learners in a journey to capacity rather than competency” (Anderson, 2016, p. 42). The shift from a supply-push model to a demand-pull model results in learner time and attention being scarce, as opposed to content scarcity (Weller, 2011). To be able to evaluate the abundance of information, the value of possessing critical thinking skills is crucial to determine the relevance of the text and to effectively analyze the content.

Supporting Learners

As an instructor, there are some simple ways to make sense of the content for learning. Instructional designers must prioritize learner support in understanding how to take advantage of the wealth of knowledge available so they can effectively evaluate uncovered content and learn how to find ways to manage it (Weller, 2011).

When learners engage with online digital learning environments, they produce content and discover “how to effectively participate in conversations,” which “is as important as learning the subject matter material itself” (Weller, 2011, p. 6). The wealth of information allows that both learners and instructors can add to, review and edit existing content, thereby adding new perspectives which can “enhance the work of others through added insights and findings” (Anderson, 2016, p. 40). Since knowledge today is more readily accessible to learners in digital formats, knowledge scarcity disappears and learners are no longer bound by accessing knowledge in a repository such as a library (Weller, 2011).

Today, content is distributed for free on a global scale (Weller, 2011), allowing novices and experts to connect effectively online. Learners can self-organize to share knowledge, resources, and questions, thereby organizing a support network (Anderson, 2016), with instructors acting as a sources of support for learners, in framing knowledge and encouraging collaboration (Weller, 2011). When learners are supported to monitor, evaluate, and update their constructions based on new knowledge or perspectives presented from other digital participants (Ertmer & Newby, 2013), a partnership evolves between novice and experienced contributors. As described by Anderson (2016), when learners are actively engaged and when they participate in conversations with multiple people with varied perspectives, learning is supported. From Ertmer and Newby (2013), because learners create meaning based on their individual experiences and validate them through negotiation when the instructor encourages communication in online environments, learners can communicate and collaborate with others to construct learning which is authentic and which holds meaning for them (Anderson, 2016).

Conclusion

We often reflect on the great thinkers of the past, working in veritable isolation. If the web was available to the great thinkers in the past to explore, collaborate, and share discoveries, who knows what the world would look like? When determining how to increase traffic to a blog site, the extensive information uncovered was overwhelming. The need to determine and discern the relevance of information and tips was evident because the diversity in the information puts the learner in control, choosing what is applicable to their given situation. In gaining perspective of scenarios, there is an increase in the importance of collaboration and a focus on users contributing to each other’s understanding (Weller, 2011). The growth from Web 1.0 to 2.0, brings new social media and other technology tools, emphasizing participation and encouraging focused conversations (Weller, 2011). When learning online, we determined that technology literacy skills are important and that the ability to connect and collaborate within an online environment is also a key factor to effective content knowledge navigation.

References

Anderson, T. (2016). Chapter 3: Theories for Learning with Emerging Technologies. In Veletsianos, G. (Ed). Emergence and Innovation in Digital Learning: Foundations and Applications. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.

Weller, M. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance. Spanish Journal of Pedagogy, 249, 223–236.

Activity 5 – Using real-world examples and encouraging collaboration

In exploring the three theoretical frameworks, behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism, described by Ertmer and Newby (2013), I found that the constructivism approach fits well within my current work. Although I value pieces of both behaviourism and cognitivism theories, what stood out for me in constructivism is that the learner’s mind “filters input from the world” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 55) and creates meaning and personal interpretation.

For this assignment, I decided to wear my “team lead” hat, wherein I coach and support team members to enjoy increased job satisfaction through a solid understanding of job tasks and expected deliverables, coupled with fulsome on-going training and support initiatives. With a constructivist approach, learners have increased control over their learning and are best supported when allowed to construct their own meaning and when encouraged to collaborate with others. In leading a team, I cannot be the solver of all problems, nor can I be available to all team members all of the time. I chose to further explore constructivist frameworks as they afford that instruction shifts from “teaching to learning” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 58) in environments where learning outcomes are not pre-designed.

Our team faces unique problems every day, but many of these problems contain core themes that recur. For example, a customer may need support in interpreting a rule around late charges. Team members who have successfully interpreted rules with customers in the past will have increased confidence in describing rules and in negotiating successful outcomes, built from past real-world experiences. From Ertmer and Newby (2013), because learners create meaning based on their individual experiences and validate them through negotiation, a constructivist framework to learning works when learners are encouraged to share their perspectives. As a team member interprets additional rules, especially when encouraged and supported to discuss the various cases with colleagues or leaders, they are able to use accrued knowledge to solve other problems on the job.

I was interested to read Merrill’s (2002) description of the five principles of instruction, including how they help to create effective learning environments and that they can be applied in all learning design types. After reading Merrill’s (2002) four instructional phases, I realize that I need to spend more time considering treatment of the Activation phase. For learners to be successful, it is important that instructional design lays a sufficient foundation for learners, so that they can activate prior knowledge and build off of it. This can be achieved through encouraging learners to recall and demonstrate previous experiences or by the provision of experience in learning design. In my own studies, I remember memorizing formulae for Newton’s laws of motion in first-year Physics. Although memorizing formulae was enough to get me through the course, it wasn’t until second-year Physics, when I began to understand how the variables in the formulae worked together, that I was able to effectively structure the learning into a mental model that I could use.

Moving forward, I must ensure that all team members have access to and support in understanding core business practices. Instead of providing a guide on how to handle specific problems, I should encourage collaboration and mentorship between novice and experienced team members, again encouraging the shift from teaching to learning, including demonstrations by experienced team members (Merrill, 2002), who model expected performance standards. In constructivist environments, learners are supported to monitor, evaluate and update their constructions based on new knowledge or perspectives presented (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). This partnership between novice and experienced team members will provide an on-going source of support for both.

Finally, one thing I must watch for was around the use of media, wherein the use of combinations of multimedia in a learning intervention can cause the learner to split their attention, resulting in increased cognitive load (Merrill, 2002). As always, there is a balance to be had and the challenge is to find that balance, while maintaining the ability to flex as environmental changes occur.

References

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71. Retrieved from: https://doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022

Assignment #1 – Building blocks from history.

Ta Prohm at Angkor Wat in Siem Reap, Cambodia.

In continuing to research the history of learning and technology, what stands out for me is the importance of considering the link between instructional design issues and the theories of learning (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

When reflecting on my history in the MALAT program, I considered an activity completed for LRNT 522. Our group chose to use Prezi to share our exploration of three theoretical frameworks. I see indications of both cognitive and constructivist views, as our learners were engaged as active participants, working through our material at their own pace. From Ertmer and Newby (2013), we “chunked” (p. 52) knowledge into building blocks and built personal meaning for our learners through the varied examples we presented. We incorporated behaviourism theory by providing a step-by-step approach to knowledge delivery and through feedback provided in the cohort forum (Ertmer & Newby, 2013).

Although I was impressed by the theoretical associations I drew, this reflection highlighted that I need to work to better understand the link between instructional design and learning theory. I found a video by Andrew Wolf, Learning Conversations in an Online Space (2014), which I found helpful in correlating instructional principles used in classroom environments to those used in online environments.

Based on Gagne’s nine events of instruction, Wolf (2014) shares a simple example of how instructors can work to engage learners by gaining their attention or interest, sharing learning objectives and eliciting their prior knowledge. In addition to sharing content and providing guidance, the instructor again elicits performance from the learners and provides targeted feedback. After the learner demonstrates their learning through assessments, the learning loop is closed when the learner transfers knowledge to a real world situation. Gagne’s nine stages of instruction are then explored through the lens of an online course, including examples of how to incorporate each stage.

After reading Merrill (2002), I noted the four instructional phases detailed: activation of prior knowledge, encouraging the demonstration and application of skills, and integrating the skills learned into real world activities (p. 44). The cross-over to Wolf’s video emphasized the importance of active learning and embedding careful design into learning interventions.

Wolf’s video continues and provides and overview of three types of interaction in learning communities that can foster learning conversations: student-content, student-student, student-instructor, described again in Anderson (2016, p. 35). The video provides an overview of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, describing it as involving the active process of constructing meaning based on novel information and occuring best in a well-thought out, well-planned and well-facilitated CoI that is built through interaction between students and content, students and other students and students and instructor (Wolf, 2014). I am drawn back to Bates’ (2014) thought that oral communication remains as strong today in education as ever, but has been incorporated into or accommodated by new technologies (para. 19). I look forward further exploring the CoI framework and integrating it into future work.

References

Bates, T. (2014). A short history of educational technology. Online learning and distance education. Published December 10, 2014. Retrieved from: https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/12/10/a-short-history-of-educational-technology/

Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71. Retrieved from: https://doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022

Wolf, A. [Andrew Wolf]. (2014, Sep. 4). Learning Conversations in an Online Spaces [Video File]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffGJFVWQEc

A timeline of social collaboration tools.

I used Sutori to create this timeline that explores the social collaboration tools that I have used in the past. Although it’s not an exhaustive list, I chose to explore tools that I had used in the past.

Check it out by following this link.

I’d appreciate it if you add any other tools that you find valuable in the comments.

History repeats itself.

Technological advances can have a dramatic impact on learning environments. Instead of forgetting the history of ed-tech, or ignoring it all together, we must learn to leverage lessons from the past as we re-write the history of embedding educational technology in new applications (Watters, 2014b).

This lesson resonates with me in my career to date, most of which has been spent designing and delivering adult education in not-for-profit or government funded companies. My roles have given me the ability to follow my passions, thereby leaving me feeling inspired every day. However, the red thread that weaves throughout every role is limited capacity, both human and financial. In 2001, Reiser included “research and theory, as well as practice” (2001a, p. 54), as part of the definition of the field of instructional design and technology. As my work tends to be project-based, the expectations for measurable outcomes are constantly shifting. Due to the short-term nature of project-based work, coupled with quick turn-arounds in project design and launch, time for reflection on lessons learned is lost.

In addition, with each new board of directors or funder, comes new rules, new governance and new expectations. In working to meet shifting stakeholder expectations around technical innovation, I notice that the interventions we create are designed almost solely for computer-aided instruction, as opposed to computer-aided inspiration. Instead of considering how the use of computer networks could enable communication between stakeholder groups, we remain focused on leveraging technology to automate learning (Bates, 2014). From reading that post-World War II research found that learning was not impacted by media type (Reiser, 2001a), I begin to wonder if spending all of our time embedding the newest technologies into our program design is the best approach. After all, effective learning that meets the needs of the learner cohort is the goal.

Changes to technology use take time, a well-resourced plan and champions in every stakeholder group. As Watters describes, consumption must balance creation (2014a). Bates (2014) notes that technology is becoming increasingly interwoven into our daily lives, but also reminds us that “claims made by for a newly emerging technology are likely to be neither true nor new” (para. 30). Watters’ (2014b) reminder that the first Dot Com bubble did not result in substantial profits or educational outcomes cements my resolve to focus on improving the quality of the training we provide, with a focus on constructivist practices that emphasize “authentic learning tasks” (Reiser, 2014b, p. 63), as opposed to incorporating the newest fad in ed-tech.

References

[Polar4201]. (2011, Nov. 13). A.O.S. History (Repeats Itself) [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg5C8aT2S8M.

Reiser, R.A. (2001a). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53-64. Retrieved from: https//doi.org/10.1007/BF02504506

Reiser, R.A. (2001b). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57-67. Retrieved from: https//doi.org/10.1007/BF02504928

Watters, A. (2014a). The history of the future of Ed-Tech, Chapter 1. In The monsters of educational technology. Licensed under the Creative Commons CC BY-SA.

Watters, A. (2014b). Un-fathomable: The hidden history of Ed-Tech, Chapter 2. In The monsters of educational technology. Licensed under the Creative Commons CC BY-SA.

Links between learning and technology throughout history.

The relationship between technology and learning goes back 2,500 years, (Bates, 2014) from the use of rudimentary tools and paints by earth’s earliest inhabitants, to the expanse of digital platforms and technology tools available today. The concept that recurred for me as I researched the history of technology in the education field was a simple one: the effective transfer of knowledge requires mutually accessible and adopted communication tools.

The introduction of the printing press in the 15th century allowed increased access to written knowledge, thereby backing-up standard oral communication practices (Bates, 2014). Advances to transportation infrastructure in the 19th century further facilitated information sharing through improved channels such as the postal system. As new technologies including radio in the 1920s and television in the 1960s emerged, so did new opportunities for education. However, just as the lack of transportation infrastructure limited the exchange of knowledge before the 19th century, many challenges restricted pervasive uptake of radio and television as education tools, including the lack of available electricity, high costs and local language and cultural issues (Bates, 2014).

World War II significantly impacted uptake in use of technology in education through the development of audiovisual devices, widely used by governmental agencies to train troops both during the war and later in the workplace (Reiser, 2001). The launch of the World Wide Web in 1991 and improvements to user experience provided by search engines such as Google in 1999, further shifted the adoption of technology, both in education and in daily life (Bates, 2014).

In reflecting on this research, the posts of fellow cohort members and my own experiences using technology for learning, I grow to appreciate that technology-based learning environments are not effective on their own. As the field continues to grow, learners must be supported to adopt technological advances in relation to their abilities, communication styles and perspectives around technological learning environments (Lowyck, 2014). Instructional designers must also continually consider and incorporate evolutions in learning theory, with the goal of supporting learners to success.

References
Bates, T. (2014). A short history of educational technology. In Online learning and distance education Resources. Retrieved from https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/12/10/a-short-history-of-educational-technology/

Lowyck, J. (2014). Bridging learning theories and technology-enhanced environments: A critical appraisal of its history. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 3-20). Springer New York. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_1

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: a history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53–64. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504506