Exploring Design Models

Photo by Kaleidico on Unsplash

What are some things to consider when selecting a design model? Dousay (2017) highlights some concrete factors to consider such as delivery format (online or face to face). In my experience based on student feedback from my online courses, content can be a well organized and in a logical layout, but they want to meaningfully engage with the content. This is supported by Veltesianos’ (2011) position that instructional design should take into consideration how technology will enhance learning, not just take lecture content and move it online.
Because I have not really studied formal instructional design theory/models until now, I have done “whatever works” in the past. I have not intentionally been involved in choosing or implementing a specific design model, but my program seems to follow an ADDIE approach, the most studied and prevalent design approach (Bates, 2015, Campbell & Schwier, 2014, Göksu et al., 2017).

Here is a breakdown of how my program seems to use an ADDIE approach based on Bates’ (2015) description of the ADDIE model:

• Analyze- Consideration of learning environments (classroom and lab design and technology required such as anatomical models)
• Design-institutional requirement for course outlines and learning objectives, prominent use of LMS (Moodle). Design of in class theory, lab experience, online course concurrently while in clinical placement to allow theory and practical learning to continue at the same time.
• Develop-creation of content by individual instructors whether online on in person, heavy use of LMS (Moodle).
• Implement-course delivery, student assessment, (assignments, exams, formative and summative practical assessments) varies depending on if it is a theory or practical/clinical course.
• Evaluate-feedback and data is acquired in the form of course surveys (student providing feedback on the course), instructor assessment of how course went and what short term and long term changes will be made based on their experience and student feedback. All data is saved and presented to a national accreditation body at regular intervals. The accreditation process required for health care educational programs also evaluates for compliance in teaching all competencies required by a national association. Accreditation also plays an external evaluation role that may make recommendations for improvement.

I can’t say whether the use of ADDIE is intentional or accidental, but as I have been involved in the program since the beginning and having been through 3 program revisions, I can say that there has never been specific discussion around purposeful instructional design by name.

One of the main limitations to ADDIE is that is too inflexible for the digital learning environment (Bates, 2005) which has been highlighted in my experience with the quick pivot from face to face instruction to digital instruction.
Because of this inflexibility limitation, ADDIE is not something that will work if designing for the digital environment. Design models I am eager to explore more are problem based learning (PBL), experiential learning theory (ETL) and guided experiential learning (GEL) because these designs are promising to be effective in medical training (Göksu et al., 2017).


Bates, T. (2015). 4.3 The ADDIE model. Teaching in the digital age. BCcampus. https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/6-5-the-addie-model/

Campbell, K., & Schwier, R. (2014). Chapter 13: Major movements in instructional design. In O. Zawacki-Richter, & T. (. Anderson, Online distance education: Towards a reserach agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781927356623.01

Dousay, T. (2017). Chapter 22. Instruction Design Models. In West, R. (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Insturctional Design Technology (1st ed.). https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/

Göksu, I., Özcan, K. V., Ç. R., & & Göktas, Y. (2017). Content analysis of research trends in instructional design model: 1999-2014. Journal of Learning Design, 10(2), 85-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.5204/jld.v10i2.288

Veletsianos, G. (2011). Designing opportunities for transformation with emerging technologies. Educational Technology, 51(2), 41-46. https://www.veletsianos.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/designing-opportunities-transformation-emerging-technologies.pdf

Activity 6: Role of “Ed” in future Ed Tech

Photo by You X Ventures on Unsplash

I would very much like to take up the suggestion from Selwyn et al. (2020, p.105) to construct more optimistic stories for the future of education than they had, but don’t know if I can. As I read through the assigned readings, I reviewed each scenario and asked myself two main questions:

  • Would I like to be a student or educator in this speculative situation?
  • How likely do I think that this speculated scenario will be reality?

I unfortunately concluded that the situations I disliked the most also seem most likely to occur in future. For instance, Macgilchrist et al. (2020, p. 77) proposed in their Scenario One, smooth users, competent subjects, that under the guise of helping society, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and education technology businesses would be highly influential in future education. This corporate influence would result in having key positions to advise at administrative or governmental levels, not a far-fetched idea even in the present.

The concept of the smooth user could be applied to personalized stories crafted by Singh and Maughan. I think stories proposed such as Iona and Kumar, trained to be smooth users, are the most likely future reality if the “tech” in Ed Tech takes the lead.

Weller’s thoughts of Ed Tech’s dystopian turn and the first general theme  concluded from 25 years of Ed Tech came to my thoughts frequently as I reviewed the scenarios and vignettes from the readings.  I could not help but suppose that the common denominator for most of these scenarios was that as Weller said:  “technology has been the dominant force in ed tech, its prevalence in society now means that the educational component needs to come to the fore”. (2020, p.180).

I’m not exactly sure where I’m going with this, but I noticed when reviewing the majority of the scenarios that I was asking: where is the education part of Ed Tech fitting in to the future?


Macgilchrist, F., Allert, H., & Bruch, A. (2020). Students and society in the 2020s. Three future ‘histories’ of education and technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2019.1656235

Singh, S., Maughan, T. (2014, June 18). The future of ed tech is here and it’s just not evenly distributed. [Blog post]. https://medium.com/futures-exchange/the-future-of-ed-tech-is-here-its-just-not-evenly-distributed-210778a423d7

Selwyn, N., Pangrazio, L., Nemorin, S., & Perrotta, C. (2020). What might the school of 2030 be like? An exercise in social science fiction. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(1), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694944

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01


Pinpoint the media debate in current events: Class for Zoom and LeaP (Shelley and Vanessa)

As educators, we are continuously seeking to refine our teaching strategies and tools to enhance student’s engagement with the content, create meaningful learning experiences but in a sustainable manner. This has been an ongoing quest since the beginning of most educator’s teaching paths. However, it is now needed more than ever in an online environment. Here are two interesting systems that claim to be the solution: Class for Zoom and LeaP. 

Class for Zoom

Class for Zoom has been created by a startup called ClassEDUClassEDU was founded by a well-known person in education technology; Michael Chasen, the cofounder of Blackboard (Schaffhauser, 2020).  According to this introductory video, Class for Zoom has been developed to add aspects of the classroom environment to online synchronous learning via the Zoom platformThis product is currently in beta testing (Class for Zoom, 2020). According to Chasen, ClassEDU polled teachers regarding what was missing in online versus the face to face classroom. This poll indicated that 60% of “the classroom experience” is missing by using Zoom in its current form. Some of these missing experiences include taking attendance, handing out assignments, and talking one on one with students during class (Class for Zoom, 2020).  Class for Zoom iadvertised as a product that can apply the main aspects of the classroom to the Zoom platform. 

Clark and Kozma’s opinion on Class for Zoom 

Clark would likely suggest that this product is another delivery system; doing the same things online that would be done in class. Therefore, the media changing from the physical classroom to online via Zoom would not enhance learning.  Most of the features advertised for Class for Zoom seem to be something done in the classroom that have been transferred to an online environment. Class for Zoom allows for more controversial (due to privacy) features such as losing focus.  This feature allows teachers to know if Zoom for Class is the primary app being used on the students’ computerassuming, not necessarily accurately, that the student is focused on something else This is not really a new thing as teachers can recognize disengagement in the physical classroom, but this program does collect more quantifiable data. Whether that data should be collected is the subject for another blog post. 

Kozma would likely state that Class for Zoom is a missed opportunity to use the specific attributes of what is capable online to enhance learning as it is his opinion that media will only enhance learning if it is designed with educational context taken into consideration (Kozma, 1994 p.20) Given that this product seems to have been developed as a response to education needs for using Zoom, it seems to be a retrofit rather than intentional design.  Although the need for this product to bring aspects of the physical classroom online may be understandable due to the quick transition from physical classroom to online that has occurred. This product may be helpful to familiarize teachers that have only taught face to face with the online environment. 

Brightspace LeaP 

Brightspace LeaP is an adaptive learning tool that builds personalized paths to meet individual learning needs (Brightspace LeaP, n.d.), developed by Desire 2 Learn (D2L). This promotional video highlights how LeaP can provide the focus, support for online learners to achieve their individual learning goals and keep learners on track. Additionally, it addresses most educator’s discomfort by stating that “LeaP is not about changing the way learners learn or the way teachers teach, it is about powering content to empower learners” (D2L LeaP – Powering Content. Empowering Learners., 2014).   

The idea of personalized learning experiences has been discussed and tried in the past. In 2011, Personalized Learning Environment (PLE) made an entrance into the Ed-Tech world but did not gain mainstream adoption (Weller, 2020) as the amount of preparation required was not sustainable.  With the help of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Performance add-on package, D2L is advertising to deliver “powerful analytics tools to help administrators, educators, and learners save quality time and maximizing impact” (Brightspace Performance Plus for Higher Education | Learning Analytics Features | Brightspace by D2L, n.d.). 

Clark and Kozma’s Thoughts on LeaP  

Clark would most likely think that LeaP is simply another “mere vehicles to deliver instructions” and replaceable by another tool that can produce similar results. However, he probably would agree that LeaP draws on psychological and social-psychological research in its instructional design to enhance the learner’s experience and achievement. 

Kozma would possibly agree that LeaP is an interactive learning tool as it provides the learner with the ability to “act” or “respond” to the content presented to them. Though, if he were to implement LeaP into a Learning Management System (LMS), he most likely would study it in four phases to ensure students would benefit from it: a motivational phase, an instructional design phase, an implementation phase, and a knowledge transfer phase. 

It is valuable to consider the viewpoints of both Clark and Kozma in the great media debate. Class for Zoom demonstrates that just because an application is using new technology, it may only be a new delivery system and not enhancing learning.  LeaP is another adaptive learning tool to engage learners that requires an excellent instructional design, investment of time and money. Will these tools be a success? We invite our readers to discuss in the comment section to share your thoughts. 


Brightspace LeaP. (n.d.). Retrieved September 26, 2020, from https://documentation.brightspace.com/EN/leap/-/all/leap_about.htm 

Brightspace Performance Plus for Higher Education | Learning Analytics Features | Brightspace by D2L. (n.d.). D2L. Retrieved September 26, 2020, from https://www.d2l.com/higher-education/products/performance/ 

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development42(2), 21-29. 

Class for Zoom (2020, September 23). Introduction to class for zoom. [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved September 25, 2020 from https://youtu.be/3_2MVEOlzRs 

D2L LeaP – Powering Content. Empowering Learners. (2014, July 31). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYeCjbMCALI 

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debateEducational Technology Research and Development42(2), 7-19. 

Schaffhauser, D. (2020, September 23). Class for Zoom Adds Education Interface to Popular Meeting Platform. The Journal: Transforming Education Through Technology. Retrieved September 25, 2020 from  https://thejournal.com/articles/2020/09/23/class-for-zoom-adds-education-interface-to-popular-meeting-platform.aspx 

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01 

LRNT 523 Assignment 1 Blog Post: Dr. Frank Gaillard-Creator of Radiopaedia.org


Polydactyly or “Two Thumbs” Case courtesy of Assoc Prof Frank Gaillard, Radiopaedia.org. From the case rID: 10382

My choice of a contributor to the intersection of learning and technology is admittedly niche to medical imaging, but I feel Dr. Frank Gaillard has built a resource that demonstrates how open education resources (OER) can be used in medical/health fields.

I have written before about https://radiopaedia.org, but now will discuss the origins. Dr. Gaillard created this wiki in 2005 “to create the best radiology reference the world has ever seen and to make it available for free, for ever, for all.” (radiopaedia.org) Dr. Gaillard describes here how in 10 years radiopaedia.org grew from himself as the sole contributor to 40000 contributors and 8 million page views per month!

Radiopaedia.org uses social media such as twitter to highlight cases located on radiopaedia.org. One such case is shown at the top of this post of two thumbs on one hand–aka polydactyly!

As these images are of real people, their details need to be kept confidential in order to adhere to privacy legislation. To overcome this obstacle, radiopaedia.org has a strict terms of use policy and content is reviewed by an editorial board. In order to allow sharing and open access, radiopaedia.org uses a modified creative commons license where credit must be given to the contributor.

Dr. Gaillard’s original creation has grown into a massive open and free resource that shows how OER can be used in traditionally closed learning environments such as healthcare.


Dougan, S. (2020, April 19). Can open education practice be used in healthcare education? A Review of RRU MALAT Virtual Symposium 2020. https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0159/can-open-education-practice-be-used-in-healthcare-education-a-review-of-rru-malat-virtual-symposium-2020/

Gaillard, F. (2020, September 18). Polydactyly. Radiopaedia.org. https://radiopaedia.org/cases/polydactyly-1

Radiopaedia.org [@Radiopaedia]. (n.d). Tweets [Twitter profile]. Twitter. September 18, 2020 https://twitter.com/Radiopaedia

Radiopaedia.org. (2020 September 18). https://radiopaedia.org

Radiopaedia.org. (2020 September 18). 10 years of Radiopaedia.org [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/sWXOWeaA9Pg

Radiopaedia.org. (2020, September 18). Terms of Use. https://radiopaedia.org/terms

Unit 1 Activity 3: Reflections on Weller 2002-2011: Second Life? Second Chance?

I read with great interest Chapter 14 about virtual worlds; specifically, about the history of Second Life in education.  I have a vague recollection of Second Life but learned much more reading this chapter. At the time that this was relevant in 2007 I was neither a student, education or early adopter of this virtual technology. My lesson from this concept was that with current 2020 technology and a renewed user interest in virtual and augmented reality games, (like Minecraft) aspects of the concepts of virtual worlds may see resurgence on a broader scale. As discussed by the author, it never really left in medical fields such as x-ray. Virtual reality (VR) in some form has been used for many years to run simulations before practicing on real patients. My program doesn’t have access to high fidelity x-ray simulation (yet), but this video shows a virtual x-ray being done through VR (https://virtualmedicalcoaching.com/) and it’s pretty accurate!  I am not endorsing this company specifically but only mentioning it as an example of available products.

This sort of VR technology is also my second lesson that conflicts with current practice. This technology is expensive to implement into a specialized health care field. Each specialty needs their own specific program; x-ray, ultrasound, medical laboratory, respiratory therapy just to name a few. Current practice is achieving entry level competency by practicing care and treatment of real people under supervision in a clinical environment. Simulation is not currently considered a replacement for clinical practice, only an augmentation.  With the current pandemic situation, some healthcare educators lost access to clinical experience completely and were left to scramble on how to reinvent an entire educational model.  The current situation requires virtual world type technology in healthcare or there will be a gap of medical professionals for years to come.

Also as pointed out in some informal conversations with some of my colleague we came to the consensus that pedagogy comes before technology. Before investing money into expensive VR technology, there must be detailed consideration on how the technology will support learning and not get distracted by the new shiny thing.



Reflections on Chapters 1-8 Weller’s 25 Years of Ed Tech

I really enjoyed reading the first 8 chapters of this book. The content introduced me to a chronological journey of the evolution of educational technology (Ed Tech) from 1994 to 2001.

I was fascinated about the discussion of each technology or concept discussed and how some were interconnected. For example, the first chapter discussed the rise of Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) and how they led to other technologies such as computer mediated communications (CMA) and learning management systems (LMS).

I greatly appreciated the overall brief descriptions of some of the computer technical terms or technologies that I was not as familiar with. For instance the discussion of learning objects (LO) in chapter 7 gave me an overall understanding of them and while they did not catch on, some LO concepts link to open education resources, (OER). I also enjoyed the flow of the writing as each chapter lead to the next.

As someone who is historically minded, I would enjoy learning as much about Ed Tech as possible, even going further back than the author’s start date of 1994.  I do however agree with the author in their introduction that since there has been a lack of historical documentation about the Ed Tech field, choosing the 25 years from 1994-2018 is a good place to start.  I look forward to reading more of this book as well as the work of ones that build on this history to add more background to the developing field of Ed Tech.



What makes a good research question?

Photo by Hans-Peter Gauster on Unsplash

If you good a quick internet search to “what makes a good research question” many answers appear!  In the YouTube video entitled “Three steps to writing a good research question”, it states that a good research question does not have a yes or no answer. Good research questions also do not use value words such as good or bad. A good research question also cannot be too broad or narrow. (Library Youtube Research and Learning Channel, 2018). Sounds good, but where do you start?  Is there an algorithm, a set of rules that can help craft a good research question?

A method to help draft a research question commonly used in quantitative healthcare research is the “PICO(T)” method. PICO(T) stands for population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and time. A good healthcare research question has PICO, not necessarily in that order with T as optional (McMaster University, 2020).

For instance, the following is a research question following the PICO(T) method and is taken from McMaster University Health Sciences Library: In emergency room visitors (population), do hand sanitizing stations (intervention) result in fewer in-hospital infections (outcome) when compared with no hand sanitizing stations (comparison) over a year-long pilot period (time)? This research question is on the general topic of prevention, specifically preventing fewer in-hospital infections. There are other examples from McMaster university that help develop research questions for the topics of etiology (cause of disease), therapy (treatment), diagnosis and prognosis (McMaster University, 2020).

While this is health sciences specific, this could be used similarly in other fields. The PICO(T) method helps to create questions that are not yes or no or too broad or narrow.  And watch out for value words (good or bad)!


McMaster University. (2020). Nursing: Forming Questions. Health Sciences Library Guides and Tutorials. http://hsl.mcmaster.libguides.com/c.php?g=306764&p=2045176

Library Youtube Research and Learning Channel. (2018, January 16). Three steps to writing a good research question [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/tuJXwyiR7qg 


Unit 4 Activity Impact of Digital Learning on Cross-Cultural Communication


image courtesy of John Schnobrish https://unsplash.com/photos/2FPjlAyMQTA

Barb, Eric and myself discussed the impact of digital learning on cross-cultural communication.  It was an interesting investigation that we have summarized here:

To see the google doc, click below. To read summary on this post see my not so pretty table (turns out google docs don’t nicely copy into workpress).


Culture, as defined by Geert Hofstede, is “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another.” (1991, p.5).


How has digital learning impacted cross-cultural communications? Below is a breakdown of background information on this topic.  We have categorized impacts from the literature as positive or negative. 


Impact Reference Short Summary
Positive: Digital learning has resulted in increased cultural awareness, even among adversarial countries.Sustained interaction has improved relationships and understanding.  

Negative: Some findings suggested that negative perceptions can be strengthened if polarization and depersonalization occurs.

Austin, R. 2006. The role of ICT in bridge‐building and social inclusion: Theory, policy and practice issues. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29: 145161.

[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar] http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/ehost/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=51129fc1-1862-4619-a006-660314fcf0ca%40sdc-v-sessmgr01&bdata=#AN=21001282&db=aph

A study of the use of telecommunications to link schools in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland with the goal to use the “contact hypothesis”, to study how sustained interaction can improve the perceptions of each other and could be a model for international relations. The program was called Dissolving Boundaries. Teachers believed that cultural awareness was not impacted the most but the students believed the intercultural awareness was the most impactful. 
Positive: Hofstede’s model can help to understand the motivation of online students and contribute to a more diverse instructional design.  The study found that online learning is more related to “open-minded” learning (p.232).  Gómez-Rey, P., Barbera, E., & Fernández-Navarro, F. (2016). The Impact of Cultural Dimensions on Online Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (4), 225–238 Directly links Hofstede’s 6 dimensions and how a dimension like Power Distance and a cultural perception of hierarchy affects autonomy levels, motivation, and initiative. The study used Power Distance, Individualism, Pragmatism, and Indulgence dimensions and compared American, Chinese, Spanish, and Mexican students. 


Positive: With carefully designed and intentional programs, which incorporate best practices, students can become more motivated and engaged.

Negative: This cross-cultural community building and curriculum development is not easily implemented in all areas of study. 

Kumi-Yeboah, A. (2018). Designing a cross-cultural collaborative online learning framework for online instructors. Online Learning, 22(4), 181-201. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i4.1520


The key takeaways from this article are that success in online teaching and learning is enhanced when instructors take an intentional approach to including cross-cultural awareness in the curriculum and classroom. This should be done by; including a self-introduction or cultural awareness activity at the beginning of the course; consistently clear, concise, and adequate instructions and feedback are given; being available at all times to answer questions in online discussion forums; creating a caring online community; including culturally diverse content; allowing students to be flexible with choosing activities; using digital tools that promote communication. 
Positive: An overall satisfaction with digital tools and intercultural learning,and increased knowledge towards both their own and other culture

Negative:Overall cultural understanding was mostly superficial

Frustration when there is technological breakdown

Çiftçi, E. Y. (2016). A Review of Research on Intercultural Learning through Computer-Based Digital Technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (2),313–327. The literature reviewed in this article indicated a general feeling of enjoyment in working with intercultural groups and increased motivation for pursuing study abroad.  Effective digital tools utilized  included blogs (build a sense of community) and to lesser degree email, chat and podcasts.

CMC (computer mediated communication) allowed people to reflect on both their own and target culture-contributed to becoming culturally competent “to a certain extent”. Overall cultural understanding was mostly superficial and fact based, but this study argued that people could build understanding from superficiality.

Positive: Digital age tools simplify the process of cross cultural communication. 

Negative: Online communication is not enough to build real trust between people. 

Lifintsev, D., & Wellbrock, W. (2019). Cross-cultural communication in the digital age. Estudos em Comunicação, 1(28), 93-104.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Denys_Lifintsev/publication/333576410_Cross-ultural_communication_in_the_digital_age/links/5cf51b9b4585153c3daf5507/Cross-cultural-communication-in-the-digital-age.pdf For many people it is easier to deal with a representative of a different culture when they are not “face-to-face”, especially with language barriers. Online translators, autocorrecting etc. can make a person more confident during cross-cultural communication processes. 

Interesting point: This article states English is a “must-have” skill for both personal and business issues for people all over the world. This is an interesting statement as this study focused on sample countries where English is not the primary language.

Positive: Ability to learn online from any geographical location

Reduced cost/expense related to travel and student visas to attend on campus in other countries.

Negative: Pedagogical and course design mismatch with cultural expectations: 

Political Issues-Social media tools are restricted in some countries due to political reasons.  Students may only write positive posts due to fear of political reprisals for being critical.

Dennen, V. P., & Bong, J. (2018). Cross-cultural dialogues in an open online course: Navigating national and organizational cultural differences. TechTrends, 62(4), 383-392.  Expectations between individualistic and collectivist cultures for online learning are very different. For example, collectivist culture is familiar with instructivist learning (expect more lecture based) and did not expect peer interaction to be part of the learning experience. Individualist cultures focus on independent work and not necessarily on group work-which may be part of course design, therefore creating a mismatch of expectations.

Interesting Point:

Learners in online learning tended to lead with their national culture and identity which may lead to conflict with the instructor’s pedagogical approach.

Positive: Asynchronous discussion allows for reduction in misunderstandings caused by language barriers such as accents.

Synchronous communications allows for students “get to know each other much better thanks to the live interaction.”

Negative: Asynchronous communication is delayed and nuances of human interaction may be lost.

Synchronous can be difficult with various time zones

Cultural specific experiences in course content may not translate to an 

international study group

Xiaojing Liu, Shijuan Liu, Seung-hee Lee and Richard J. Magjuka Source: Journal of Educational Technology & Society , Vol. 13, No. 3, Innovations in Designing Mobile Learning Applications (July 2010),pp. 177-188 International Forum of Educational Technology & Society 


Delayed text-based communication of an asynchronous discussion “is unable to convey the nuances of human interaction and, therefore, the students felt that it was difficult for them to figure out the intentions of the other students during group work due to their different working styles and cultures.”

Case bases content/studies in this course were US centric that other students could not relate to-diversity with cross cultural considerations are needed.

Negative: While enhancing communication between different demographics, ICTs sometimes exacerbate the disparity between people with different socioeconomic backgrounds. Resta, P., & Laferriere, T. (2015, 12). Digital Equity and Intercultural Education. Education and Information Technology:, 20, 743-756. Impoverished countries are left behind the digital trend due to impediments in both hardware and content. The underdevelopment of infrastructure, cost of hardware and software for individuals, and the linguistic barriers – the majority of public knowledge is published in English, which excluded non-English speaking minorities.



Austin, R. 2006. The role of ICT in bridge‐building and social inclusion: Theory, policy and practice issues. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29: 145161.

Çiftçi, E. Y. (2016). A Review of Research on Intercultural Learning through Computer-Based Digital Technologies. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (2), 313–327.

Dennen, V. P., & Bong, J. (2018). Cross-cultural dialogues in an open online course: Navigating national and organizational cultural differences. TechTrends, 62(4), 383-392. 

Gómez-Rey, P., Barbera, E., & Fernández-Navarro, F. (2016). The Impact of Cultural Dimensions on Online Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (4), 225–238

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Kumi-Yeboah, A. (2018). Designing a cross-cultural collaborative online learning framework for online instructors. Online Learning, 22(4), 181-201. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i4.1520

Lifintsev, D., & Wellbrock, W. (2019). Cross-cultural communication in the digital age. Estudos em Comunicação, 1(28), 93-104.

Resta, P., & Laferriere, T. (2015, 12). Digital Equity and Intercultural Education. Education and Information Technology:, 20, 743-756.

Xiaojing Liu, Shijuan Liu, Seung-hee Lee and Richard J. Magjuka Source: Journal of Educational Technology & Society , Vol. 13, No. 3, Innovations in Designing Mobile Learning Applications (July 2010), pp. 177-188 International Forum of Educational Technology & Society 


Reflection on LRNT 521 Unit 3 readings






Photo by Merakist on Unsplash

In reflecting on the readings for this unit, I discovered that every connection online is an opportunity to learn (Dron & Anderson, 2014). Dron and Anderson (2014) have categorized the social forms of learning from online connections into groups, sets, networks and collectives. While I see opportunity to be part of any of theses social forms of learning, I see my involvement in networks to be most applicable to my current goals associated with cultivating my digital identity and presence.

In participating in networks as a learning opportunity, I relate to the importance of digital capability as outlines in Beetham’s (2015) blog post, specifically the learner example.  In working on building digital capability, there is a large list of skills that are important (Beetham, 2015).  The main skill I need to work on is digital communication such as “communicate with other people in a range of digital media” (Beetham, 2015).  A tangible first step in developing this skill is using Twitter to share this blog post!

Learning opportunities arise from connections online. By increasing my digital communication, primarily through Twitter, I can work on cultivating my digital presence specifically in networks.


Beetham, H. (2015). Digital Capability Example Learner Profile. Jisc Building Digital Capability Blog: http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/6236/1/Digital_capabilities_learner_profile.pdf

Dron, J, & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching Crowds. Athabasca University Press.