Author: Marshall

I am a high school Social Studies, and English Language Arts teacher. I have a strong interest in e-learning, and want to see where this interest will take me as far as career paths are concerned.

Theoretical Frameworks: Constructivist Learning Theory FTW

For the theory that underpins my research, I am leaning toward constructivist learning theory, but have also considered transformational leadership theory. So for context here is my research question framework thus far:

  1. How might digital learning pedagogy drive curricular change in a way that aligns with student centred learning?
    1. What factors might be taken into consideration when gauging the impact of digital pedagogy?
    2. In what ways might teachers be engaged to support digital learning pedagogy?
    3. What strategies might be used to allow digital pedagogy to evolve to respond to future shifts?

For the actual pedagogical aspects of how learning will change with a modernised curriculum that focuses on digital and student centred learning, constructivist learning theory seems to make sense. However, the actual achieving change within a curriculum in any direction, may suggest framing the research with transformational leadership theory.

I am definitely more comfortable with my constructivist learning theory knowledge, which involves students making meaning from the materials they are presented, and driving their learning as the focus of this learning. My knowledge of the transformational leadership theory consists mostly of cursary knowledge based on some initial article skimming. Having not focussed on this theory at all in my professional or academic life, it would be the steeper learning curve, but I am not daunted by this if it is the proper choice. My understanding of this theory is that it is focuses on a leader trying to identify stakeholder needs in managing change, and then motivate his/her team to achieve certain goals. The theory, I think, is built around the motivational tactics that are necessary to achieve these goals.

Given that bringing digital and student centred learning into a changing curriculum this theory would seem to be apt for my cause, but given my current sub-questions focussing more on the pedagogy behind the curricular change might be the right choice. But, I would sure love some more enlightened opinions!!!

Disseminating My Research: Toward the Final Step

The more I think, the more I am coming to terms with what I want to research, but I am still not completely convinced, here is a recap of where I think I might head:

How can digital learning pedagogy drive curricular change in a meaningful way? More specifically, how can educators employ student centred learning strategies using technology as the driving force, while ensuring that actual learning takes place considering the immaturity of secondary students, when compared to adult learners. What sort of shift does there need to be in teaching practice and training for this to effectively occur? Finally, how can we devise a method that accounts for future change and technological advances.

My aim in taking this program was to see what educational opportunities lay within the field of education, but exisited outside of the classroom. Since I have dedicated my teaching career to  upskilling in all things e-learning, I also hope to pursue something related to this aspect of the field of education once I am finished.  Living and working in Colombia for the time being, most of my friends are either other teachers, or digital nomads and the lifestyle of this latter group interests me. So, I am now beginning to sew the seeds that will hopefully begin my transition out of the classroom, this is of course if my home brewing business does not take off in the meantime!

I have begun looking into digital and social media marketing and branding to learn about how I will sell my skills in my post masters/post classroom life. I am trying to start more of a digital presence, and network as much as I can. I hope to publish what I create, at the very least on my own website, and perhaps, (depending on the tack I take) design a professional development program around what I end up researching that I can then offer to various educational institutions. My hope also, is that international borders, will not be much of an issue. I would love to be published in a reputable journal, but if I am honest with myself at this stage in my life, I am exhausted and not feeling super confident about writing something worthy of such acclaim, but it is early days in the research process, I guess we will see. Another question here is, how does one get himself published?

Compounding all of this is the fact that I still don’t really know enough about how to market myself professionally, or how to design something that people will want to employ. I am hoping that by leaning on my network in the coming months, and asking lots of questions to people who hopefully have some answers for me, the picture will come into focus.

AR and VR: New Horizons

  1. The learner reflects on their learning within the categories of “Here’s What” “So What” and “Then What” to complete their post.

    1. Here’s What – show understandings constructed about VR and/or AR Before taking this course I really knew nothing about augmented reality (AR).              I had heard of it, but was not clear  what it was or how it was useful in a learning setting. I came to realise that I did in fact know what AR was, but did not realise that this is what it was called. In fields beyond my expertise AR is helping to diagnose problems more quickly by providing real-time data on everything from mechanical engine repaire to ciruculatory problems. Google Maps, and various travel apps help make naviagating city streets, and in the case of the London Gatwick Airport app, it allows passengers to quickly and effieciently navigate what is likely a confusing space for people already under a great deal of stress. My week focussed more on AR than it did virtual reality (VR), but with virtual reality my previous experience using Google Streetview combined with the carboard app and a set of google cardboard glasses made me previously aware of the immersive and engaging potential of VR to make learning exciting for my students by taking them through museum and city tours.

    2. So What – provide an interpretation or new meaning to the new knowledge.     I think the potential for both of these technologies is going to grow exponetially over the next few years. As this the type of technology whihc supports these types of applications becomes more streamlined, lags less, and become increasingly realistic the immersiveness will transport us into a fourth dimention. Google Glass, and other wearable technology is already here, and in the not too distant future I think you will be able to walk down a street and have all kind of interactive inforkation bombarding you. TO me it is both a scary and exciting proposition.

    3. Now What – share a prediction, implication, or a question for VR/AR in the learner’s educational context.                                                                                    How invasive will this technology be, to what extent will privacy be an issue? These concerns notwithstanding, the ability to watch a real-lkfe event in the comfort of your living room and feel like you are actually there is an educational experience with limitness potential. And, and more real time events are recorded in full VR capacity the people of the future will be able to go back in time and experience events as if they were there. This may be the closest we ever come to time travel.

The Key to Facilitating in an Online Learning Environment

Please Click the image above to see the infographic in a higher resolution. (My attempts to embed HTML did not work 🙁 )

The most important tip for effective online facilitation is to create a sense of community. Online learning environments (OLEs) can be isolating. An effective online community can combat this issue and lead to enriching educational experiences. According to Boetcher (2013), community building should be equal parts social, teaching and cognitive/content presence. Creating small peer feedback groups, and having learners complete introductory identity activities can help to build this community, which can then serve as a support system once the course begins. In addition, the peer to peer and learner to facilitator relationships advocated by Boetcher help to build community, but also engagement.  This also helps to promote facilitator presence.

Continue reading The Key to Facilitating in an Online Learning Environment

Prototype Reflection (U3 Activity 2)

  • What was the most surprising thing that you learned by participating in the design thinking process and designing and developing your digital learning resource?
  • Nothing really surprised me during the process I wouldn’t say, but I guess I didn’t really expect the responses I got, not anticipate embarking on the direction I ended up taking my design during the empathy phase. I thought i had a pretty good handle on what my colleagues would need, and what they were up against, but the degrees of technological and pedagogical aptitude varied quite dramatically. As a result, I had to scaffold instruction for the various instructional objectives I hoped to achieve with my digital learning tool(DLT).
  • What suggestions and improvements did you receive? Did you get any feedback that you did not expect? What feedback needs further investigation?
  • The initial feedback from my instructor was helpful, but some suggestions were not tenable due to the medium chosen. Google Classroom is a rigid tool, thatoffers some flexibility, but very little customiseability. This was coupled by the fact that Google Classroom itslef underwent a major design overhaul the weekend after I submitted my final tool. This meant many of the features and instructional modules were not where I had set them initially, and may not have even been found by the instructor, nor by my fellow cohorts evaluating my resource.
  • Feedback from my colleagues cited my inclusion of useful resources, but without providing practical applications, they noted that the bias from the application provider they would be exposed to would be significant. I agree with this assessment, and had previously planned to address this issue with hands on activity suggestions, but in the time allotted for the whole activity, I did not have time to put this all together. It is good to see at least that my evantual intent was at least on the same page as my evaluator.
  • Further feedback indicated that my modular instructions were at times too broad, and needed more focus. While I was aware of this in part during the design, my evaluator did orovide me with soem useful suggestions that I could apply to future iterations of this tool that would make it more user friendly, and objective focussed.
  • What are the next steps you would like to take to build upon your digital learning resource?
  • I would like to continue to add and develop resources and modules to it to make it a more functional DLT with a broader reach. Because I am in a position to continue to do so in my day to day practice, I expect that I will be able to do so.
  • Building on the feedback from my evaluator, I plan to only put forth more clear and complete elements of this tool, to provide it as a more practical and user ready resource, that focuses learning a bit better.

LRNT 527 Unit 3 Activity 1 DLT Evaluating Framework

Evaluative Tool Overview 

Marshall Hartlen, Bobbi Donnison, Krista Frate, & Nicolette Young

Using the design thinking process (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016) and LORI (Leacock & Nesbitt, 2007) as guides, we decided to assess our assigned Digital learning tools (DLT) on criteria which we felt were fair representations of: design, flexibility of use, accessibility, user awareness, and problem assessment. The various descriptors are inter-related with some aspects being dependant on the successful representation of other aspects.

Excellent Proficient Satisfactory Limited
Design Digital tool design is engaging and facilitates understanding through intuitive design properties. Design choices effectively promote cognitive load distribution Digital tool design is effective and facilitates understanding through well chosen design properties. Design choices promote cognitive load distribution Digital tool design is adequate and facilitates understanding through simplistic design properties. Design choices may effectively promote cognitive load distribution Digital tool design is ineffective and does not promote understanding through inadequate design properties. Design choices do not promote cognitive load distribution
Usability and accessibility The DLT is intuitive and includes a variety of built in features that accommodate a wide range of users The DLT is fairly intuitive and includes some built in features that accommodate a wide range of users The DLT is effective and includes some built in features that accommodate  average users The DLT is counter-intuitive and built in features only accommodate the most basic range of users
User awareness (empathy) DLT is astutely designed with the needs of the end user in mind, and empathetic design features are clearly evident DLT is proficiently designed with the needs of the end user in mind, and empathetic design features are evident DLT is competently designed with the needs of the end user in mind, and empathetic design features are fairly evident DLT design is inadequate with the needs of the end user not clearly considered. Empathetic design features are not evident
Problem Assessment The DLT serves as a perceptive solution to problem(s) outlined in the empathy phase of design thinking. The DLT serves as an insightful solution to problem(s) outlined in the empathy phase of design thinking. The DLT serves as an adequate solution to problem(s) outlined in the empathy phase of design thinking. The DLT does not provide an adequate solution to problem(s) outlined in the empathy phase of design thinking.

Figure 1 Evaluative Rubric

Design

Design refers to more than just an aesthetically pleasing and functional tool, but should also work to make learning easier for the user by minimising cognitive load, while maintaining ease of use. Poor presentation design can lead to users being having their verbal, visual or both, channels overloaded (Mayer & Moreno, 2003). According to Leacock and Nesbitt (2007) incorporating text, conceptual diagrams, audio and other formats can lead to a more effective and functional design.

Usability and Accessibility

Usability and accessibility to the majority of users ultimately determines the viability of DLTs.  Most tools are designed by software experts and not people in the field of education (Nam & Smith-Jackson, 2017), this leaves the actual learning enabled via the tool suspect. It is difficult to design a tool that embraces constructivist learning (Martindale, Cates & Quan, 2005). Haderouitt (2010, emphasises the need to bridge technical and pedagogical usability that considers technical usability, as well as learning goals and theory. By considering both, the DLTs true educational impact is more easily measured.

User Awareness

Any successful digital tool should be designed around the needs of the user, not the whims of the design team. Empathetic design seeks to guide innovative efforts, discover and keep an awareness of human emotion, and discover needs that users have, but may not be aware of (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016). By keeping empathy at the core of any design, the design team is more likely to yield a purposeful product by improving usability since the user experience is paramount. In addition, adhering to principles of empathy, problem assessment should also be addressed.

Problem Assessment

Addressing user generated problems requires first understanding the user. Doing so in the empathy phase of design thinking, should lead to a problem assessment that provides focus for the problem, inspires creative design that recognizably addresses the user problem(s) (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016). Leacock and Nesbitt ( 2007) stress the importance of linking learning activities to the problem, and hold this to be a key feature of their framework. By focussing on the solving the problem, the DLT ultimately serves its purpose of facilitating user learning, and this determiner could be seen as the most important to the overall assessment.

 

References

Hadjerrouit, S. (2010). A conceptual framework for using and evaluating web-based learning resources in school education. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 9, 53-79.

Leacock, T. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2007). A framework for evaluating the quality of multimedia learning resources. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2).

Martinidale, T., Cates, W. M., & Qian, Y. (2005). Analysis of recognized Web-based educational resources. Computers in the Schools, 21(3), 101-117.

Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.

Nam; C. S., & Smith-Jackson, T. L. (2007). Web-based learning environment: A theory-based design process for development and evaluation. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 23- 44.

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg. Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf

My Design Plan Prototype – Unit 2 Activity 3

To make sure I am ticking  off all the boxes, I am just going to leave the format of the activity here. to guide my discussion.

  • Description: The school I work with is implementing a BYOD scheme for grade 10 and 11 next year. My didgital resource will help teachers manage this change by providing them with both digital resource training and pedagogical training.
  • Learning Goals: I would like the users to achieve a consistent and common minimum comfort level with both digital resource usability and digital learning pedagogy to promote effective digital learning in the classroom.
  • Intended Audience: The primary audience will be secondary school teachers at my school, but secondary beneficiatries will be the students who are partaking in the BYOD program, the design will help to ensure the smotthness of transition for them as well.
  • Rationale: I have alredy identified that my users need more support with this transition than initially anticipated. The users have little to no background in effective digital pedagogy, and very limited technological experience period. I plan to use Google Classroom as  hub for a variety of digital tools that will help familiarise the users with the medium that the school is asking us to use (GSuite for Education) and will also provide the ability to link other tools and tutorials to this centralised resource location.
  • Tools: I will be using Google Classroom as my centralising hub, but within this will be a variety of links to other resources, including video tutorials and links to to other digital learning tools.
  • Google Classroom was chosen because it in itself will be used by the student users to manage their learning , so by using it as the central hub of my digital tool, it forces the teacher users to also be familiar with it. While Google Classroom is limited in that it is not a complete LMS, it does offer a variety of flexibility within the context of the school, which has “gone Google” and is pusing  teachers ans Students to be familiar withthe platform. provide a summary of the tools that you will use to develop your digital learning resource and clearly justify why you would like to use them.
  • Assessment Plan: Some of the activities will able to be assessed by completion of the assignments themselves, for example: an assignment that requires students to demonstrate knowledge of pedagogical awareness, would ask them to design an activity using the digital tools they have been shown how to use. I have considered having the users also create and deliver a lesson to be taught to the other users, this would give them the opportunity to practice what they have learned, and it would also give the other users an opportunity sit on the side of the student learners, which should help them empathise with their end users. Ultimate satisfactory completion of the skills will be evaluated by me.
  • Learning Theories & Instructional Design Principles Used: Digital learning in the k-12 sector requires knowledge of constructivist learning theory. This is the theory which this learning tool will hope to root its instruction in. By having users both create resources, and use resources created by other users, empathy will be kept front and center throughout the process, hopefully leading to a better overall user experience.
  • Instructions for Use: The adult users will be required to work through a series of “assignments” that will be loaded on the Google Classroom site. These activities will include a variety of tutorials to support further learning, and learly and concisely outline instructions for how learners will use your digital learning resource.
  • Plan for Use: The Google Classroom site will be public to all who have a Google account, and the appropriate access code, whoch will be provided by me.

Tool Choices for my Digital Learning Tool – Activity 2

My digital learning tool needs to be flexible as it will be utilised by edicators of various levels of ability and tech-savvyness – if that is even a word? Because I am in an educational setting, I will utlise Google Classroom to manage a variety of digital learnng resources, including both pedagogical and practical learning aids.

As far as a framework goes, I feel that the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework is ideal because it is all encompassing. I need a tool that will not just highlight technological tools, but also help instil the pedagogical knowledge that is required for implementing technology, and not just means to figure out the various digital tools available. My users need to know how this technology is going to impact their practice, and how they can best maintain their effectiveness as digital educators.

“Teachers need to master more than the subject matter they teach; they must also have a deep understanding of the manner in which the subject matter (or the kinds of representations that can be constructed) can be changed by the
application of particular technologies”  (2013).

I felt that the substitution, augmentation, modification and replacement (SAMR) framework was too specific to focussing on the using digital technology for the sake of using digital technology, or was too focussed on replacing “old school” technologies rather than charting a course that looked at how digital technology could be used alongside existing technology, and how it could grow and change with the existing educational platforms and mediums that have been around for centuries. TPACK I also felt would help my users better make the tranistion to digital teaching because it does embed pedagogy in the process rather that just showing off a bunch of flashy new digital tools that can be used for learning.

Koehler M. J., Mishra P., & Cain, W. (2013). What Is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal Of Education, 193(3), 13-19.

Creating Empathy in Design

For my digital learning tool, I plan to create some sort of library of resources to help my colleagues to navigate a shift toward teaching in a BYOD environment, and to also help our students navigate the same transition.

I understand the concept of empathy better when it comes to my colleagues, since I too will be making this transition along with them.  According to Kouprie and Visser (2009)  having an emotional/affective response to my colleagues’ emotional state, and being able to reflect on that by assuming a similar cognitive perspective seem to be the core mechanism of empathy. Since I am experiencing the exact same thing as my colleagues, empathising with them is more straight forward since I can inform my design based on my own experiences.

Where I think I will struggle more is with empathising with our students. Teeneagers today  have grown up with technology, and I know that in Canada for the most part, technology is a large part of formal classroom based education. Students, in general, know how to use Google Apps for Education, Microsoft Office, and are familiar with many web 2.0 tools like Prezi and Mind Meister. In Colombia, this is not necessarily true. While most of these students have been exposed to all of these tools, very few have been shown how to use them, or had any significant amount of time spent using them as an educational tool in a classroom setting. Shifting to a device and student centred learning platform for them will be a big leap, and I am not sure how best to prepare them for it.

I plan to make a series of short video tutorials about how to use applications efficiently in a school setting, but I am not sure how best to address the training to help them to think differently, and for themselves: somethng they are not currently doing with any degree of success.

Part of the issue, I realise, is the ESL barrier. My students are at varying levels of English proficiency. They all speak it well, but I am never sure how much of what I say actually gets absorbed. For the most part I feel like Charlie Brown’s teacher “waw waw, waw waw waw wah.”

I know this because after I am done my increasingly brief instructions and ask “are there any questions?” (there never are) there is a calamity of Spanish discussions as the more able students regurgitate what I have just said in Spanish to the less capable students. I know that there is some empathetic insight to be gained here. I understand that language is part of the barrier to general understanding, and I can empathise with this on a personal level, because even though I have been here a year, my Spanish is pretty shoddy. So I can relate to what it means to not understand.

However, I could really use some proactive insight to move me forward regarding pratical ideas for designing solutions that are rooted in empathy.  How do I enable my students to gain independence and confidence in their navigation of digital learning resources? Video tutorials are a start, but how do I ensure comprehension of text based digital resources without standing there and spoon-feeding them? This is ultimately my empathetic design challenge, and any advice or insight would be greatly welcomed and appreciated!

References

Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437-448.

Advances in UDL Knowledge and Application

In my last blog post I noted that I wanted to focus on getting up to speed on what universal design for learning (UDL) was. More specifically I stated: “I wanted to look at research into UDL that was not specifically tied to MOOCs or apps. Essentially I wanted to know what the research about UDL had to say about learning in general” (Hartlen, 2018). In my experience as a secondary educator, UDL was not explicity mandated by any school I worked at, but through differentiated instruction (DI), and assessment for learning (AFL) practices it was indirectly applied as best practice teaching, unbeknownst to me.

Now that I have delved a little deeper into UDL, and have a firmer grasp of the seven principles, my plan now is to evaluate these various principles further as I continue the investigation started in my team Awesome Sauce’s inquiry into various edX courses delivered through an app.

In addition to the seven principles of UDL outlines by  King-Sears (2009), in my last blog I referenced three core components that drive UDL:

  1. Multiple means of representation to give learners various ways of acquiring information and knowledge
  2. Multiple means of expression to provide learners alternatives for demonstrating what they know,
  3. Multiple means of engagement to tap into learners’ interests, challenge them appropriately, and motivate them to learn (Edyburn, 2005).

Having now explored edX101: Overview of Creating an edX Course as part of team Awesome Sauce’s critical inquiry for this course, I hope to apply my new understandings of UDL to more content driven courses aimed at the general public, rather than a course directed at prospective instructors to see if UDL is embedded into course design. I noted that although universal accessibility is addressed in the accessible content section of the course (edX101, 2018a), the website accessiblity policy does not specifically reference any UDL principles (edX101, 2018b) so it will be interesting to see how UDL is addressed in other courses offered by edX, and how strictly this policy in general is enforced.

From a secondary education standpoint, I can see the value in UDL, and it where educators generally have a great degree of flexibility in determining assessment strategies, which often include a variety of options to demonstrate learning for learners, I have a difficult time envisioning how this works in a MOOC where there are potentially thousands of learners.

I am left wondering, is UDL a viable framework for delivering a MOOC through an app, or even just in delivering a MOOC? To what extent do UDL principles potentially impact the value of course content? And finally, do these principles impede delivery by making it more difficult to administer?

References

edX (Producer). (2018a). ​edX101: Overview of Creating an edX Course. ​[MOOC]. Retrieved from https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:edX+edX101+1T2018/course/

edX (Producer). (2018b). ​Website Accessibility. edX101: Overview of Creating an edX Course. ​[MOOC]. Retrieved from https://www.edx.org/accessibility

Edyburn, D. (2005). Universal Design for Learning. Special Education Technology Practice, 7(5), 16-22. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download doi=10.1.1.552.9700&rep=rep1&type=pdf

King-Sears, M. (2009). Universal design for learning: Technology and pedagogy. ​Learning Disability Quarterly, 32​(4), 199-201. DOI : 10.2307/27740372