What's on offer for learners? (Peter Coolbear, DEANZ 2010)

Image by hazelowendmc via Flickr

Peter Coolbear, in his closing address to the conference, raised some key questions from the conference for the participants at the conference to go away and think about. He stressed that there is a need for system level adjustments that will shape and enable decision making. Some of the key questions were around generalisability.

Can we extrapolate from meeting the need of distance learners to meeting the needs of all learners? How can we level off work like that which has been presented at the conference to influence all of tertiary learning?

He closed with the phrase (from Scott Symonds) "lecturer re-creation application" as something to avoid at all odds .... Food for thought, and time for a cuppa!

Contrasting experiences of blended learning (Kehrwald, Simpson and Rawlins)

Image by hazelowendmc via Flickr

Benjamin Kehrwald, Mary Simpson, and Peter Rawlins used a symposium approach to look at a practical examples of blended learning.

They used the Simpson and Anderson (2009, p. 99) definition of blended learning. The study itself was based around an ambitious project that sought to redesign the 4 year BEd programme and to use a single common online learning environment that catered from Palmerston North, Hawkes Bay, and other campus students in an area where they accessed all of their papers, communicated with each other and with academic staff etc.

Data was collected using a questionnaire, followed by an interview for students, and a similar approach for teachers. The aim was to drill down past the quantitative data that had been collected.

Some interested things that arose from the data were questions around what blended actually is, and what we collectively believe to be blended learning, and who the 'we' is. An example of a staff answer" I think there are shared understandings developing in pockets but I think within courses people develop an modify and evolve shared understandings". Definitions of blended learning from staff was "...different philosophies applied by each of the eLearning facilitators"; and "...when people come from different subjects, discipline areas the task is much more difficult because it demands understand of each other's disciplinary approached and the constraints of time are very tight..."

Student views included "the use of [online] enrollment was as a secondary where you could do some extra homework there, if you didn't touch it a all it didn't make much difference to how you went through the class until the second semester" where a blended approach was expected. There were emerging expectations, and the notion of being confronted with alternative expectations, especially where there was a conflict between what was considered face-to-face and extramural, and whether one should 'look' like the other. In part this demonstrates a limited understanding amongst students around what blended learning is, but, surely, it also points up the necessity for programmes to be up front around what is going to happen, how students are going to interact, and not make assumptions around understanding of academic vocabulary?

Mary Simpson considered aspects such as consistency of the vision, which would in turn build a shared understanding of what blended learning comprises.  The shared vision included team-based, collegial writing which would be a huge challenge in the university environment. The findings showed that faculty were willing to face the task, but that they found it exhausting, gruelling, and logistically frustrating, while also be enlightening, enriching, and enhanced practice in unexpected ways.

Peter Rawlins gave an overview of how he worked with the data from the study. In every paper there was an expectation that there will be some online aspect. Three-quarters of the students said that they went online more than once a day, and these students were equally spread between internal and extramural students. There was a significant number of students agreed that the online learning helped them succeed, although the distance students were more convinced. In addition, there was strong support that the material and the discussions were useful, but there was approximately 29% who disagreed that this was the case. The students value the face-to-face time, but they do also see the value of the online environment. It is a complex, interconnected picture rather than a simple case of face-to-face or online is 'better', and the students are very aware of this, especially when asked if the environment(s) enriched their learning.

It appears that there is a still a lot to learn around blended learning and offering blended learning programmes. Perhaps we need to engage students a lot more in the development of programmes and programme design from the outset rather than designing courses 'for' them, erring toward a 'one size fits all'? Possibly the group work and collaboration that was trialled within this study could also include either current students or graduates from the programme? If students were brought on board to provide a student voice, to advise and create within a programme at a meta level, in a meaningful way, perhaps retention, success, and a whole raft of affective factors would be enhanced.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Upside Learning on Blended Learning (angelamaiers.com)

The great debate - DEANZ 2010

Image by hazelowendmc via Flickr

The debate panel was comprised of Simon Atkinson, Niki Davis, Terry Neal, Nicki Page, Peter Guiney, and Derek Wenmoth. The judges were Liz Burge, Terry Anderson, and Bill Anderson.

The debate point was that the new places, spaces and tools of learning produce better outcomes and opportunities for learners.

Derek Wenmoth opened with a positive spin, first opening with a question as to what constitutes 'new', and emphasising the desire to continually improve. Technology was used as a term which embraces spaces, places and contexts. Transmission stands at the top end, rather than mediated experiences. He quoted a range of comments throughout the ages around technology; e.g. 1703 - "teachers today cannot prepare their bark quick enough - they have to rely on their slates. What do they do when their slates break?"!

Simon 'the slayer' Atkinson was up next, and opened with the 3,000 year old story of the one eyed monk. The monks were wandering in the foothills, and if they wanted hospitality they would often have to debate. The novice monk was one-eyed, deaf and mute. They went up the hill to a monastery, and after 5 minutes the old monk left. The points from the story were that there was no technology at that time, and that it took no technology to tell the story...it seemed perhaps a little spurious!! It was also followed by a small stunt where one of the against team rang Simon on his mobile to interrupt his 5-minute against.

Terry Neal was up next speaking for the affirmative. She was up front in saying that there was little to refute in Simon's points. Terry talked about two meta-analyses from 2009 that illustrated that there is a growing body of evidence that demonstrates that "stronger learning" outcomes are being achieved in blended environments when compared to only face-to-face education. She then mentioned meaningful examples of new places, spaces and tools, including those that were personally known, in particular those related to real-life skills.

Nicki Page was the next speaker for the negative. Her suggestion was that we don't know where to draw the line. A lively, humorous presentation, it seemed to be designed to be derogatory toward some of the key advances in education (and some of the other panel members). It was funny, but I felt it was set out to pull down the positive aspects of ICT enhanced learning and teaching, rather than making a serious point for the negative team.

Nicki Davis up next. She started by saying that students were being ignored which is why we have had to move to new places and spaces. As we move into the 21st century we have to realise who we haven't been reaching (including teachers). In NZ learners are being brought into these new spaces and places. She showed the NZ eLearning cluster map showing which schools are collaborating. Nicki made the point that blended learning has doubled annually in the USA since the advent of the first virtual high school. Some of the kids being reached are those that refuse to go to school - and they are being encouraged to participate (e.g. in the UK 'Not School'). Who are the learners we have not reached before (for instance those with low literacy and numeracy).


Peter Guiney was next for the negative. He started by refuting the examples and evidence of the other team. He made a good point about "where's the new stuff"? asking why people had not been referring to the future, but rather pointing to the past. Power to the students was the closing, rallying cry!


One minute rebuttals followed the 5 minute points. The negative team undermined the validity of the backchannel being shown on the screens during the debate, and voiced the desire to drown out the Twitter feed. The point was made that we are forcing our view of the world on students. Derek Wenmoth went back for evidence - the Massey Web site was down, but then found some research about Voicethread and Web 2.0 research with positive outcomes, then referred to the research around Midwifery and Second Life, and finally pointed out to MoE research and the fact that it was all written by the 'negative' half of the panel.

The judges wrap-up was insightful and amusing. Pulling together key points from both teams, the first judge came down on the side of the positive, and the next on the negative. Liz Burge did the final wrap up return on investment for students, elegance, and integrity (delivering on the expectations of students). The winners were therefore the negative team!

I wonder why they didn't ask the audience?????? (talking of learner expectations!!). I suspect there will be lively debate around the outcome. For me, the negatives just tried to shoot the positive team down in flames with no real substance to their arguments, and no evidence to support their points of view - not that I'm biased in any way of course ;-)

Feedback from a couple of people from the audience I met afterwards, however, felt that the judges decision was right - because there had been no debate, so the only thing that could be judged was entertainments value...and the negatives were certainly were entertaining! In part, it was felt that the lack of debate was because the moot was a truism, and you can't debate it truism.

Create, collaborate, communitcate (John Trealor, DEANZ 2010)

Image by hazelowendmc via Flickr

John Trealor ( Education Director, Asia Pacific) gave a demonstration of Adobe Connect. He showed a range of the functionality including using multimedia, creating content for sharing with a range of people (i.e. to share information after an online meeting...and you can also see who has actually looked at it afterwards). John suggested that this could be a good formative tool that could give you feedback on your presentation skills.

 One of the key things that was emphasised was the engagement of participants. One example that he gave was 'In a Nutshell' (a collection of 5 minute, or less, video resources from the University of Southern Australia). The topics are related to learning and teaching, and have been created in Adobe Connect. The only equipment required is Adobe Connect, a video, and a microphone. Another example that he gave as an easily accessible bank of resources that complex covers concepts and skills around nano technology was Nano Hub. Links etc will remain live so users can follow hyperlinks as they view the video.

I wonder how many people from this presentation will go away and try this resource? There are a couple of issues that may not have been covered very clearly - for example, it is an expensive tool, and it is not possible to go and try it out for free online before purchase. It is likely that a whole institution would have to sign up to have Adobe Connect. Bandwidth is an issue, too. Also, based on some of the research that was shared yesterday there are some professional development considerations around the use of Webinar technology like this, especially if it is going to be used to empower learners rather than replicate lecture formats online....

Integrating Second Life into midwifery education (Sarah Stewart, DEANZ 2010)

Image via Wikipedia

A real interesting presentation, Sarah Stewart gave a great overview of how Second Life can be used in a way to enhance learning that was not possible without a virtual world. The midwifery project/normal birth scenario was part of a larger project using Second Life in NZ education project.

Sarah started by checking who had been into Second Life before, and then very briefly described some of the basics of Second Life, creating an avatar and getting around. She used a lot of screen shots to help create a sense of the environment and the participants who collaborated in the design of the project itself.

The underlying design behind the birth unit in Second Life were shown. Sarah advised that they wanted students to be able to contextualise what they were learning, while also being able to apply their existing knowledge. Research shows that the birthing environment affects the outcomes of the birth - a sterile, cold, clinical environment can result in anxiety, and ultimately in interventions such as c-sections, with knock-on impact on the ability to breast-feed, for instance.

Pictures of nurturing things and colours have been chosen to create a sense of warmth and safety. Machines and instruments are kept in cupboards. Information and references wre kept in Wiki Educator as well as a back up if students were having problems with Internet connections etc. Also, there was investment into the notion of ensuring that everything was open and freely accessible to educators around the wold. A closed Facebook group was used to house some of the activities, such as reflective activities. They made the conscious decision not to use Moodle, partly for issues of ownership/openness, and partly because students were already familiar with Facebeook and did not require upskilling.

Sarah's presentation was full of great images and ideas which gave a great introduction to a scenrio and set of skills that would have been extremely difficult to have experienced in a real-world situation. The focus on sharing with peers, reflection, and the ability to trial things as many times as was required by each learner illustrated some of the benefits of learning in a virtual world. The idea of a safe, 'sandpit' environment for taking risks (without endangering anyone) in a social, fun environment is key. It won't replace the actual clinical environment, but it works effectively hand-in-hand with a virtual world.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Medicine in the Virtual World: Molecules and Training (scienceroll.com)
• VWBPE - Designing for Virtual Worlds (deangroom.wordpress.com)
• Best Practices Virtual Worlds Education (deangroom.wordpress.com)
• Can Virtual Conferences Replace Real World Boondoggles? (techdirt.com)

Three generations of distance education pedagogy: Challenges & opportunites (Terry Anderson)

Image via Wikipedia

This was the first keynote of the second day of the DEANZ 2010 conference, and was given by Terry Anderson around distance education pedagogy and the changes and growth that have been observable over the last three generations. He starts by indicating that the first generation of distance education was based on behaviourism and cognitivism, which looked particularly at independent learning. The second generation was based on constructivism and groups, and, finally, the third generation is linked to notions of connectivism (which built on theories of participatory pedagogy, complexity, and trandparency).

The newer generations of distance education are still working concurrently with the earlier generations, Anderson suggests. As such, designers, developers and educators are challenged to enhance learning and teaching opportunities by increasing access to quality learning contexts and opportunities.

Motivation, structural support and cognitive skills are key in distance education where the group, network and collective aspects (the unconscious aggregation of activities of all of us) of learning can be foregrounded. The connectivist tools (over 3,000 of them) are wide-ranging and are based on Web 2.0 (check some of them out on the Go Web 2.0 site). The sheer range may offer an insight into why some education practitioners choose to use an LMS - the choice is just overwhelming.

Terry Anderson gave a range of examples from Athabasca, including using ELGG to build a social networking community, as well as using podcasts, vodcasts, and screen casts. Some of the most concerning issues raised were around using the connectivism model were privacy, control, dealing with disruptive change, institutional support, and sustaining motivation and commitment to avoid running after fads all the time.

The thing I found most interesting about this presentation was the recognition that there is still a combination of all generations of distance education, with the inference that many educators and institutions are still working with earlier models. Also, Anderson closed by posing the question: "which type of student is most engaged by each generation?".

Related articles by Zemanta

• Connectivism in Practice: Critical Thinking as a Distributed Course (downes.ca)
• Decentralized Learning (downes.ca)
• Teaching Presence in a Community of Inquiry (downes.ca)
• Open Connectivism Spanish Course (downes.ca)

Quality connections: Interactive session (Lisa Emerson, DEANZ 2010)

Image via Wikipedia

Lisa Emerson, following on from the format she used at the eFest meets Teaching and Learning Conference at UCOL (Palmerston North) in September 2009, led an interactive session which initially explored ideas and concepts that underpin the conference. She, with passion, unpacked Torrance (1995) in Gibb's To be a teacher: Journeys towards authenticity, where there is a focus on great teachers being able to:

• perform miracles;
• inspire their students to creative, independent thinking and action that may at times get out of hand; and
• are continually in danger of coming to a sticky end.

The interactive exercise was set up to explore the nature of participant's connections and the relationships between people. The first criteria was 'upwards' (a list of four people you have connections with who are above you, or in authority over you in some way), then there was an exercise around those connections (p=positive, n=negative, a=ambivalent, o=neutral or no relationship), and has it changed in the last 6 months. Secondly, people looked at their peers (a list, and range, of four people who are peers), then there was an exercise around those connections (p= positive, n= negative, a=ambivalent, o=neutral or no relationship), and has it changed in the last 6 months. The next point to consider was technology. Participants could either draw a picture of how they perceive their relationship with technology, or they could list terms that related to their perception of technology. The final thing to think about was relationships with students - again either as a picture or list of words.

A final step was to pull everything together to consider the overall picture, and to choose one of the relationships to think about in more detail, and then write down, or draw that relationship, in particular focussing on what the ideal relationship would be, a lost of barriers to achieving it, and one thing that would affect the relationship for the better.

The audience grouped together to discuss what had been written on the papers, and the noise level went up. As and interesting aside, about 20 people left the room rather than get into groups and discuss the points.

The general buzz, bursts of laughter, and general enthusiasm suggested that the audience relished the opportunity to discuss and exchange ideas around a structure - a set of things that they had been guided to think about, and so felt confident to discuss them. The people who elected to leave I wonder if they are the folk who really dislike group work of this type, and I guess one of the great things of forums like this (as opposed to formal, traditional 'class sessions' is that participants have the freedom to vote with their feet. As such, a session like this does, in effect, fulfil the needs of people present, and those who do not feel comfortable, are empowered to leave.

After the discussions everyone reported back on what they had been talking about. There was a lot of good humour and high energy, and spontaneous feedback about how much everyone enjoyed the activity.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Teaching for excellence: Excellence in teaching (ictelt.blogspot.com)

Connected Kids (Andrew Kirk, DEANZ 2010)

Image via Wikipedia

Andrew Kirk's presentation explored how a pilot project ("Connected Kids") helped introduce 10 Te Kura (years 7 to 10) learners to new learning opportunities. All the students were provided with reconditioned students at home, as well as an Internet connection. All the students had been identified as disengaged, and would otherwise have limited or no access to the Internet. Teachers worked with the learners to help design and develop personalised learning opportunities with the aim of engaging both the students and their supervisors. All participants were to keep the computer (solid, entry-level and would do the job, but not all whistles and bells) after the study, and the 'pay back' was that they had to study, submit work and participate in new ways of learning.

Previously the programme had to be paper-based, and was then shifted to Blackboard. Blackboard was used as the main portal, as well as using Open Office suite, Google Earth, Pivot Animation, PowerPoint and Skype.

Students were most active and engaged when parents and immediate community was involved in learning. This led to improved reading ability, higher return rate of work, developing social skills, and improving ICT skills. Students' feedback emphasised the connections and that they were able to contact each other more easily. They enjoyed talking to other students, easier writing/editing, talking to the teacher on Skype about what they need or would like to share/show, using online interactive activities, searching and researching, and creating learning relationships.

The lessons from the pilot were multifarious. There were real positive results such as increase in achievement, but the scalability and sustainability are still under discussion. It was stressed that there needs to be full buy-in from the school.

Three steps to enhance e-teaching in schools (Ken Stevens)

Image via Wikipedia

Ken Stevens (working at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada & Victoria University of Wellington) gave an interesting overview of introducing eLearning at the high school level, in particular in rural schools away from the main settlements. He suggests that this should be built on a collaborative model, which incorporates a conceptual shift at the teacher education stage.

The collaborative model includes inter- and intra- institutional communication, virtual classes meeting traditional classes, and also (and most controversially he has found) challenging the notion of traditional schools.

Ken outlined three main steps for the enhancement of eTeaching in rural schools. He also introduced a pedagogy for e_learning which looked at awareness open learning structures, collaboration, learning circles, and building shared realities for understanding. A cybercell is a face to face group whose members extend their discussion into the virtual, and can invite in guest and expert voices from around the world. The notion is that sustainable eLearning communities are based around collaboration, adaptation, cultural identity and innovation. As such, Ken puts forward a scaleable, sustainable model for eLearning that recognises issues of access and equitability.

Examining motivation in online distance learning environments: Complex, multifaceted and situation-dependent

Image by hazelowendmc via Flickr

This presentation by Maggie Hartnett who described some of the findings from existing research into motivation in online environments. There have been two main methods of research in online environments, one of which is a trait-like model that looks at motivation as something that does not really change, and is a characteristic of a learner, thereby it is linked to intrinsic motivation. The second view sees the design of an online environment as a way of creating learner motivation, and thus tends toward a notion of extrinsic motivation. Maggie pointed out that neither of these approaches allows for social learning and the building or relationships within online learning environments.

Maggie gave a description of her research that she has been conducting as part of her PhD thesis and findings to date (and used some audio from interviews with students from the case studies that Maggie). Her findings so far suggest that learner motivation in these environments is complex, and learners were not primarily intrinsically motivated, but rather was related to situational conditions and was multifaceted in nature.

Quality connections: No 8 wire, wool and 'sure to rise': New Zealand icons and distance education pioneers (Liz Burge, DEANZ 2010)

Image via Wikipedia

Liz Burge explored NZ icons, and then highlighted parallels between these icons and the distance education pioneers. The distance educators, she argued required N. 8 wire thinking that used intelligent solutions to tough challenges. They followed guiding principles of flexibility and openness, as well as recognising the diversity of students. Values, lessons, and opinions about technology were central for the success of distance education.

There were four underpinning guiding principles that kept distance education pioneers buoyed up and focussed - equitable access, respect and responsiveness to learner, deliberately engaging materials for learners, and collegiality.

Roger Mills, Gail Crawford, Gary Miller, and Tom Prebble were some of the pioneers of distance learning that were mentioned. Liz Burge quoted many of their words, and brought forward lessons of the past, highlighting connections between things that have changed, and others that haven't. Much of what hasn't changed is the culture of education, resistance to educational change, the necessity of allies at the highest levels of an institution (politics), and the momentum for flexible rather than inflexible education.

Liz linked critical thinking to technology, and the ideas of the pioneers around the concepts referred to. Critical thinking included being cautious about hype - for example the hype of how television was going to change education...the same language is being used about eLearning. Draw limits around early adopters, and wait for something that is clearly not opinion, but rather is sound research. The question was posed around critical theory around access that moves from managerial to wider aspects of social justice.

The audience was cautioned against using students as fodder for research because researchers needed publications.  A suggestion was made that learners need to be brought into the process, to co-author, and to receive acknowledgment. The priority is around getting research funds, and as many publications as possible.

The messages were interesting, and some of the quotes were inspirational. However, I felt it was telling that Liz Burge sat at the front reading quotes and asking several rhetorical questions - for example, there were no images, no visuals for the visual learners amongst the audience. It seemed out of tune with the 'messages' and ideals that were the foundation of her presentation. She then moved off to one side to allow the audience to have a conversation around the key ideas she raised in her presentation. However, again, the 'conversation' was a roaming microphone that was passed around the audience who spoke to the quotes...there appeared to be little empowerment of the audience, very little opportunity for everyone to have a voice. Just sitting in the first keynote...which was a depressing contradiction of what was being said, and what was being done...however, Liz Burge did ask if the silence that followed the first audience speaker was because we were so used to the transmission model. I would ask, can you use the transmission model, and throw something open to the audience and expect vigorous discussion!? Is it time for a new model for conferences? :-)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Review of Distance Education Research (2000 to 2008): Analysis of Research Areas, Methods, and Authorship Patterns (downes.ca)
• Drawing the Wrong Conclusions (downes.ca)
• Test teaching techniques (slideshare.net)