In order to represent mastery of PLO 2: Demonstrate knowledge and skills in current and emerging instructional technologies, I elected to use the EDU 655 final assignment. This assignment is a paper on the Future of E-Learning. In this final paper, I describe the need for evolving and changing instructional materials and teaching practices due to the tools that are going to be the future of e-learning. As a result of the changing learning needs and tools that will be used, the roles of both instructor and learner will also change. I believe this assignment, in a course with a professor that I fully enjoyed and worked hard in, meets the criteria for PLO 2 because it is specifically about emerging technologies and how this will affect my role (and the knowledge and skills I will need) to be an effective classroom teacher.
Future of E-Learning
Dyane Plumly
EDU 655
Dr. Lisa Johnson
December 23, 2013
Introduction
The ways in which we teach and learn are quickly evolving, both in regards to the technology and modalities in which we teach and learn but also as the needs of learners also change. Brown and Adler describe how people now change careers multiple times throughout their lifetime (Brown and Adler, 2008). Due to this, people must be able to learn new skills and accumulate new knowledge continuously (Brown and Adler, 2008). If the way that working adults are changing the environments and the spaces in which they work, students need to be prepared for this type of evolving work field. When people change jobs often, they must know how to learn together, build together, and work cooperatively more so than just having a particular set of skills or set knowledge base. As a result, the learning that takes place in the classroom needs to also focus on this type of collaborative learning that allows students to become lifelong learners who will be prepared for their future. The Internet, and particularly e-learning are major components in creating effective learners that can achieve the expectations outlined by the workforces they are entering.
As a panel that will hold influence over some of the next steps that we will soon be taking in order to ensure we are developing critically thinking, technology proficient, and innovative learners, I hope that the following discussion of learning models, learning tools, roles of teacher and learner, and evaluation of these changes will be considered.
Learning Models
As we transition into learning environments that are more virtual and collaborative, the models for e-learning will also have to adapt to the needs of the learner. The “one size fits all” templates for lesson planning and instructional delivery no longer works for learners that need to be prepared for an evolving workforce. In my opinion, the most critical aspect of the learning model that will be adopted is one that prepares learners for any new learning encounter that they will experience because they have learned how to learn, rather than simply learning (and often, forgetting) content. With this idea in mind, problem solving should be a major component of learning models and lesson planning. Problem solving is the most natural, complex, and meaningful kind of learning/thinking activity for four important reasons: authenticity, relevance, enhanced meaning making, and the idea that “the kind of knowledge that is constructed to represent problems...is more meaningful” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, pgs. 64-65).
As we further examine learning models in e-learning, we must also reflect on the purpose of learning models and the learning outcomes that they will achieve. Instructional design “requires selecting, organizing, and specifying the learning experiences necessary to teach somebody something” (Horton, 2012). In this way, design is decision-making. The models that we select guide the framework of the course, scaffolds the learning activities, and determines what students learn. Decision-making is imperative because we must understand “how the mind works during learning and of what research data tell us about what factors lead to learning” (Clark & Mayer, 2008).
In order to connect the value of problem solving in lesson activities with a learning model, I think the NTeQ model which has students “engage in research, analysis, and presentation of the results” has the potential to guide the future of e-learning (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, p. 211). The NTeQ model is a ten-step process that also includes the specification of objectives, uses technology to support student learning, and learner participation through during computer use, before computer use, and after computer use. This model seems that it would allow students to actually use technology and solve problems in ways that professionals actually do in their careers. By using this model, students are using technology to solve authentic problems. In suggesting ideas on how to improve science education, Carl E. Wieman, a nobel laureate in physics, believes that “If you have classes where students get to think like scientists, discuss topics with each other and get frequent, targeted feedback, they do better” (Dreifus, 2013). The critical piece in this is that students get the chance to work and think like they would on the real job. Finally, in the NTeQ model, students present their results or findings - much like they would in these types of careers.
Tools that will become more used
The future of e-learning will have a greater inclusion of many tools that support effective teaching and learning. As described in eLearn Magazine, the Internet, and thus Learning and Web 2.0, has shifted from “being a medium, in which information was transmitted and consumed, into being a platform, in which content was created, shared, remixed, repurposed, and passed along (Downes, 2005). Due to this, social networking tools, such as blogs or wikis, can be used in the classroom to have students learn alongside and with each other. This approach is not only more student-centered, but allows students to create their own learning rather than having the educator deliver information to students. All learners learn best when they are able to discuss, share, and teach the material. In addition to these tools, there is also a growing use of web conferencing, podcasts, instant messaging systems, discussion boards, and tools that offer both asynchronous and synchronous learning opportunities. Additionally, in the 2011 Horizon Report, electronic books, mobiles, augmented realities, game based learning, gesture based learning, and learning analytics are some of the expected technologies to start having incorporated in our future classrooms.
As a high school teacher, there are a few tools that I think are particularly beneficial - the use of e-books and the use of discussion boards. As both a teacher and learner, the benefit of having a tool that allows asynchronous and synchronous learning moments is that the users can adapt it to their specific needs. For example, in online courses, people often live in different time zones and areas. In this case, a learner could pose a question or a topic for others to discuss, and then sign off. When they returned online, other users would have had the chance to respond. In this way, users are engaging in a conversation but it is asynchronous and flexible enough that users can respond and engage when they are available. John Seely Brown and Richard P. Adler, note that study groups are beneficial because “Students in these groups can ask questions to clarify areas of uncertainty or confusion, can improve their grasp of the material by hearing the answers to questions from fellow students, and perhaps most powerfully, can take on the role of teacher to help other group members benefit from their understanding (one of the best ways to learn something is, after all, to teach it to others)” (Brown and Adler, 2008). In my opinion, e-learning’s future is a blended or hybrid environment. Discussions will still occur in a traditional classroom, but online discussion boards will allow students to extend their learning and connect with their peers outside of the classroom, particularly in a way that better prepares learners for the physical meetings they will participate in.
Secondly, I believe that the use of e-books will have a significant impact. In the 2011 Horizon Report about electronic books, it states that the reason electronic books have such potential for popularity is the “transformative technology is the new kinds of reading experiences that they make possible” (Horizon Report, 2011). It describes experiences such as “Magazines like Time, Wired, and others [that] include interactive graphs, links that extend the reader’s experience, video, and more” (Horizon Report, 2011). Even more so, it describes the future of electronic books that they could allow “journeys through worlds real and imagined, undertaken not alone but in company with other readers” (Horizon Report, 2011). These features of e-books will allow learners the opportunity to become both collaborative and self-initiating learners.
Changing role of instructor and learner
The roles of both instructor and learner must change in order to create the learning experiences that have been discussed thus far. In general terms, the learning environment must become student, rather than teacher, focused. In online learning environments, it is also important to create instructors that act as coaches or facilitators. In previous online experiences, students are often left to their own devices. This type of learning was solitary and just involved learner and computer. In my opinion, there are two key pieces that have to change - the instructor becomes more of a facilitator and the learner must take more ownership for their learning.
In any e-learning environment, the facilitator must have the time and space (i.e. low teacher-student ratio), to effectively monitor and guide the progress of learners. By having a manageable student load, the facilitator can act as the “designer of student work[...]a facilitator of the learning process[...and]a caring mentor,” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, p. 79. In doing so, they can create a sense of community, ask questions that have learners engaged with others, and give prompt feedback that encourages student reflection and growth.
Lastly, learners should have personalized learning plans that not only put forth goals and objectives to guide the decisions made by the educator and learner, but to also place ownership in the learner’s hands. According to Re-Inventing Schools Coalition (RISC), a non-profit that is working to change the way traditional schools operate, defines a Personalized Learning Plan as “Students receive ongoing instruction in goal setting and achievement. They then put this into practice for the remainder of their school career by writing goals to address their individual needs. Personalized Learning Plan includes four components: Plan, Do, Check, and Adjust. In this way, student’s individual need are assessed - yet, by both the student and the instructor. Rather than educators and administrators simply creating a plan for students (as is done when students are on “tracks” in traditional schools), students have input -- and hence, relevance and ownership -- of their learning plan and goals. By doing so, students are thinking beyond just their high school diploma and become invested in both their current learning and how that learning will shape and guide their futures.
Evaluating effectiveness of elearning tool
For educational purposes that would most effectively guide day-to-day student teaching and learning, both formal and informal evaluations can be used to determine the effectiveness of an e-learning tool. For example, Stufflebeam’s CIPP evaluation model stands for context, input, process, and product. According to our textbook, “context evaluation is the assessment of the environment in which an innovation or program will be used, to determine the need and objectives for the innovation and to identify the factors in the environment that will impact the success of its use” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, p. 97).The third step, process, almost allows an evaluator to make determinations about the learning as it is occuring, in order to make changes and adjustments as needed in the process. The final step, product evaluation, occurs at the end of the program in order to determine its success according to the outlined goals. The questions asked at this time center around “What is the overall merit and worth of the program?” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, p. 98). These last two steps incorporate both formal and informal evaluations.
As a classroom teacher, though, the greatest evaluative tool is one that is specific for the day-to-day teaching in my classroom. This type of daily reflection would almost ensure that by the end of the unit, we had successfully reached our objectives and could proceed to the next scheduled event. In a daily evaluation model, I would use the first step of Rossi’s five-domain evaluation model and begin with a needs assessment (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, p. 98). The needs assessment would allow me to specify the needs of their learners and create instruction and lessons around this specification. Yet, the next step would be a a daily piece - writing a daily lesson objective. Then, at the end of the lesson, I would mimic the fifth step of CIPP of product evaluation in order to assess whether or not there was worth in the lesson and if that learning sequence had enough merit to continue. If not, changes would need to be implemented for the next day.
Although this daily use of an evaluation model might seem obvious, I think, as educators, it is easy to forget this practice and to simply push forward in order to meet deadlines of standards/units that need to be taught. Yet, making self-evaluation and reflection a daily piece of teacher practice allows teachers to determine if they need “to do something in a different way” or “that what [they] are doing is the best way” (Tice, 2004).
References
Brown, J. S. & Adler, R. P. (2008, January/February). Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0811.pdf
Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning (2 Har/Cdr ed.). Washington D.C.: Pfeiffer.
Dreifus, C. (2013, September 2). Ideas for improving science education. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/02/science/science-education-voices.html?_r=0
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K., (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/HR2011.pdf
Horton, W. (2012). E-Learning by design (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley
Reiser, R. & Dempsey, J. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. ISBN: 9781256080831
Tice, J. (2004). Reflective teaching: Exploring our own classroom practice. BBC. Retrieved from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/reflective-teaching-exploring-our-own-classroom-practice
No comments:
Post a Comment