Category: Reflection

Invisible but Vital

On By Margaret SimkinIn Digital scholarship, INF537, knowledge networks, Reflection3 Comments

 

This is Our Challenge:

It is the human capacity of libraries that is critical: staff who are knowledge intermediaries, teacher-librarians, and information and data scientists. Such people work at the junction between development, information science and governance (Gregson, Brownlee, Playforth, & Bimbe, 2015, p. 6).

In today’s paradigm, libraries are responsible for the provision of the invisible infrastructure which enables access to information and inform research (Gregson, Brownlee, Playforth, & Bimbe, 2015, p. 22).

This is the challenge we face for Information Services at  my workplace and it’s probably common to others. We have been working through a period of transition for some time, and with the addition of 1:1 devices from 6 – 12 in 2016 this will accelerate.

fig 2.1

(Gregson, Brownlee, Playforth, & Bimbe, 2015, p.22)

This situation requires a change of focus, from the resources and their appropriate care and display, to the people so that what we provide suits individual needs, is accessible anytime and anywhere, and enables publishing as well as reading. We have been slowly working on this aspect as well.

table 2.2

 

 References:

Gregson, J., Brownlee, J. M., Playforth, R., & Bimbe, N. (2015). Evidence Report No. 125: Policy Anticipation, Response and Evaluation: The Future of Knowledge Sharing in a Digital Age: Exploring Impacts and Policy Implications for Development. London: Institute of Development Studies.

 

 

LMS & Learning

On By Margaret SimkinIn digital literacy, Digital scholarship, discussion, effective teaching, INF537, knowledge networks, ReflectionLeave a comment

Joining the Traveller’s Journey

(Thanks, Simon Welsh!)

In recently considering digital scholarship, and also reflecting on Colloquium 1 (Welsh, 2015), the potential of Learning Management Systems in comparison to their usage has presented itself as an issue worthy of academic investigation. Until hearing Simon speak passionately about the things many LMSs already measure, and those that could potentially be calculated and then applied to improving learning outcomes for students, I had not considered the possibilities, and these became clear (Welsh, 2015).

For many educators, the LMS is something that has been introduced into their working lives without explanation as to why it is needed, or what it can do for learning.  For secondary teaching colleagues, it has presented a platform for storing work for students, somewhere to host school-wide timetables, and more recently enable roll marking and report writing. Comparing the university LMS to that used at my recent schools has demonstrated some gaps, but the access to analytics, as referred to by Simon (Welsh, 2015), is not obvious to a learner in the former or a teacher in the latter.

Given that students have no say in the specific LMS required by their institution, to what extent do educators have choice in either system or what that system enables them to present (Islam, 2014, p. 253)? Do educators have freedom to create meaningful learning for their students or do the templates offered by the LMS constrain them; or is it incumbent on educators to build on what their LMS enables and augment the weaknesses (Leaman, 2015)?

Rekhari takes these concepts further by declaring that there is a chasm between learning design, technology and the LMS due to a combination of ineffective use by educators and flaws in the design of the systems (Rekhari, 2015, p. 12). She further questions whether the reasons that benefits that LMS intend to deliver to educational design are not entering praxis are the fault of the developers making the software hard to use, or the educators not proactively applying constructivist philosophies to their learning design (Rekhari, 2015, p. 13). She goes on to question whether LMSs are the barriers to educational change (Rekhari, 2015, p. 13).

This publication has led to much questioning of my own practices as an educator using an LMS – and has led to the realisation that beyond managing storage and retrieval of coursework, the other possibilities have not been considered. In order to further my understanding of what our school LMS can do I have requested time with one of the developers. To develop my understanding of practical analyses that already exist I have turned to Twitter, where I have engaged in meaningful dialogue with several professors in the Computer Science and Information Technology Department at RMIT, and who have sent me a document in which they compare Blackboard to Facebook in terms of supporting a specific online course in programming (Maleko, Nandi, Hamilton, D’Souza, & Harland, 2013). Additional reading has also been ongoing.

I “attended” the first Colloquium with a degree of disinterest predetermined on the basis of its description, and, due to Simon’s future predictions, it has intrigued me and started me on a learning journey I would never have predicted. This has proved not only interesting but potentially very useful, and will form the basis of my Case Study for Assignment 3.  From passive user to captivated challenger, I am now wondering if a different approach on my behalf could enable my development of a learning ecology for enhancing digital scholarship (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009, p. 248).

References

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching and scholarship in a digital age. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.

Islam, A. N. (2014). Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a learning management system in post-adoption stage: a critical incident technique approach. Computers in Human Behavior, pp. 249-261.

Leaman, C. (2015, August 20). What If Your Learning Management System Isn’t Enough? Retrieved from eLearning Industry: http://elearningindustry.com/learning-management-system-isnt-enough

Maleko, M., Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., D’Souza, D., & Harland, J. (2013). Facebook versus Blackboard for supporting the learning of programming in a fully online course: the changing face of computer education. Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering, pp. 83-89.

Rekhari, S. (2015, August). The Chasm – learning design, technology, and the LMS. Training and Development, pp. 12-13. Retrieved from Australian Institute of Training and Development: www.aitd.com.au

Simkin, Margaret (2015, August 3): #2 http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/08/03/2/

Welsh, S. [Host] (2015, July 28). Learning Analytics: A Traveller’s Guide; Colloquium 2. Albury, Victoria, Australia.

 

 

 

 

PLE & PLN – it’s us!

On By Margaret SimkinIn Collaborating, Colloquium, Connecting, digital artefacts, digital literacy, discussion, effective teaching, INF537, knowledge networks, peer learning, Reflection2 Comments

Open and Social Learning according to Alec Couros:

An open course entitled Education, Curriculum, and Instruction: Open, Connected, Social using Free Ope Source Software through the University of Regina, was implemented in 2008. (Couros, 2010, p. 109). It was based on personal learning networks, and participants quickly realised the value of sustainable knowledge networks. This led to a context built around a series of events which quickly absorbed participants in an engaged community of participation (Couros, 2010, p. 110).

The theoretical foundations of the course were

The open movement (Couros, 2010, p. 111).

Complementary learning theories – social cognitive, social constructivism, andragogy, connectivism, and open teaching (Couros, 2010, pp. 112-115).

The primary learning environment was established collaboratively in the weeks preceding the course. The tools considered were:

Web CT (now Blackboard) – pros: familiar to students and the university had a strong infrastructure of support; cons: proprietary (modifications needed vendor support); directed learning favoured over constructivist; expensive licensing fees.

Moodle – pros: free; open source; modifiable, strong community support; touts a constructivist and social constructivist approach; available. Cons: needs PHP server infrastructure; requires technical expertise leading to hidden costs; software not as available as hoped; course-centric not student-centric; top-down instructivist approach.

Ning – pros: ease of use; freely available in 2008; familiar functionality similar to Facebook; community and individual privacy levels; user-centric spaces; content aggregation; communication tools. Cons: no wiki feature; awkward to add core content material.

Wikispaces – pros: senior, best-known and most stable of wiki providers; solid technical support; theme modification options; simple user interface – see http://eci831.ca/ (Couros, 2010, pp. 117 – 119).

The course required the establishment of a PLN, and it was mandatory that participants developed a personal blog/digital portfolio, participated in a collaborative wiki resource ( no longer active but was located at  http://t4tl.wikispaces.com; this is what happens when such a site is not paid for!) and completed a major digital project (sound like INF 530!) (Couros, 2010, pp. 119 -120).

The course was based on the following tools and interactions:

Synchronous activities: two events per week of between 1.5 and 2 hours in length; the first based on content knowledge (like our INF 537 colloquiums); the second on teaching skills (Couros, 2010, pp. 120-121).

Asynchronous activities: researching and blogging; shared bookmarking; artefact creation; participation in open professional development opportunities; creating content and uploading it to sites such as YouTube; microblogging; collaborative lesson design and contribution to the course wiki (Couros, 2010, pp. 121-122).

Knowledge networks and digital innovation’s forerunner?? Just like INF 530 and INF 536, students developed authentic, dynamic and fluid interactions both within the designated course spaces and in spaces they chose and shared themselves.

Defining Personal Learning Environments, and comparing them to Personal Learning Networks was an exercise undertaken by Couros through Twitter and recorded at http://educationaltechnology.ca/couros/1156. Key agreement indicated that PLEs are the tools, artefacts, processes, and physical connections that allow learners to control and manage their learning (Couros, 2010, p. 125). PLNs explicitly include the human connections that result in the advancement and enabling of a PLE (Couros, 2010, p. 125).

Couros makes the following recommendations for those wishing to use PLNs for teaching and learning:

  • Immersion by participants
  • Social media literacy
  • Active contributions strengthen your PLN
  • Know your “followers” or “friends”
  • PLNs are central to learning for sustained and long-term growth in both facilitators and students(Couros, 2010, pp. 125 -126).

The participatory learning communities developed by courses such as the one Couros describes continue to exist because they are not based around courses per se, but around communal learning (Couros, 2010, p. 127). Those of us taking the Knowledge Networks and Digital Innovation course can already attest to that in terms of the subjects we have already finished because for many of us the content continues to be shared and discussed. If Couros is correct, this course will never have to end – now there’s a challenge to my PLN!

Reference

Couros, A. (2010). Developing personal learning networks for open and social learning. In Veletsianos, G. (Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (109–128). Athabasca University: AU Press.

Article Review

On By Margaret SimkinIn Connecting, discussion, INF537, peer learning, Reflection1 Comment

Intelligent Questionnaire Design for Effective Participant Evaluation by Lisa Elias

Step 1: Before designing a survey it is critical that the objectives are identified – what is to be achieved and why is the survey necessary? This means considering the nature of the people who will be surveyed, those who will gain information and the purpose of the task itself.

Step 2. Then, write the questions in a clear, well thought out manner based on the objectives outlined in step 1. In this way, the data collected will be high quality and applicable to the needs of all concerned (Elias, 2015, p. 8).

Ensure that questions are:

Clear and unambiguous

Concise

Neutrally worded

Avoid embarrassment – omit or minimise sensitive topics

Ensure respondents’ privacy

Select the question formats with the objectives clearly in mind. A mix of question types will elicit the best data.

Question types to consider:

Yes/no – quick response enabling simple comparisons

Multiple choice – only one selection or multiple selection?

Likert scales – demonstrate a rating per respondent on a common scale

Open-ended responses – time-consuming to analyse but rich qualitative data. Use sparingly.

Alternative responses – allow respondents to opt out or provide their own answer

Ordinal/ranking – a series of items that respondents are asked to rank (for example from 1 to 5                         where 1 is most important and 5 least important; each number can only be used once)

Format the survey by considering the most logical layout to achieve your aims. This avoids confusing the respondents and makes analysis easier.

Introduction – explain why the survey has been established and convince people that                                    participation is valuable and worth their time and effort.

Order and group the questions according to the format you have deemed most logical.

Initial questions should be impersonal and easy to answer so that respondents continue.

Short is best (Elias, 2015, p. 9)…

But ensure the information will be adequate for the purpose.

Use contingency questions if applicable so that people do not have to answer questions                                   irrelevant to them. A preliminary question should ascertain how many, if any, questions of                           the following set need to be tackled.

Use a progress indicator for online surveys – it shows respondents how far they have to go.

Thank participants and provide your contact details.

Likert Scales should be:

labelled e.g. Poor (1) ranging to excellent (5)

Consist of an odd numbered scale so there is a mid-point – 5 or 7 options have proven best

Follow the same value pattern – either left to right or right to left

Make sure the words applied to the scale allow for the full range of responses

Elias provides a very helpful checklist to use when construction questionnaires:

  1. Has the survey been test-driven?
  2. Do others find the layout clear?
  3. Is the purpose explicitly explained?
  4. Have respondents been thanked?
  5. Is anonymity and confidentiality of data been guaranteed?
  6. Are instructions clear and precise?
  7. No duplication?
  8. Are questions plain and unequivocal?
  9. Are all questions essential?
  10. Are questions correctly ordered?
  11. Will closed questions result in the expected numerical data required?
  12. Are open text options sparingly used?
  13. Is there sufficient time for completion(Elias, 2015, p. 10)?

Reference:

Elias, L. (2015, February). Intelligent Questionnaire Design for Effective Participant Evaluations. Training and Development, 8-10.

 

ICT Horizons

On By Margaret SimkinIn blended learning, Connecting, digital literacy, discussion, effective teaching, INF537, knowledge networks, ReflectionLeave a comment

The NMC Horizon Report 2015 K-12 and links to Wang and Weller readings:

The current edition of the Horizon report can be found here and a commentary on what it means for education can be found at the Mind Shift blog. It is always thought provoking to investigate this report and much of the content resonates with the subjects I have taken as part of my course.

This diagram gives a brief overview of this year’s findings:

Challenges

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The report this year sees integrating technology onto teacher education as solvable and cites the Finnish example of using Edukata (a participatory design model):

The more difficult, or wicked, challenge is scaling the models of teaching innovations(Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2015, p. 1).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wang Chp 25

On By Margaret SimkinIn Colloquium, discussion, evaluation, Reflection2 Comments

Building Education and Technology Competencies for a Changing Society

This post is prompted by the need to master the chapter of the same name in (Wang, 2014, pp. 331-342) written by three women working at Auburn University in the United States (Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014). Whilst American in focus, the material embodies a high level of relevance for Australian K-12 and tertiary education.

American college students’ success is being challenged by 3 factors:

3 factors These factors are reflected in 3 trends:

 

3 trends

To assist this, K-12 educators need to incorporate the everyday use of technology into classrooms to maximise good habits that will assist with lifelong learning. Demonstrated to have a positive effect on tertiary students are these 5 habits:

5 habits

Educators at both tertiary and secondary level need to teach 5 skills:

5 skills

 

Competent tertiary students need to be:

  • Internationalist
  • Adaptable(Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014, p. 332)

And they need to graduate with the following 12 skills:

12 skills for graduates

 

(Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014, p. 336)

These skills can be developed by K-12 teachers incorporating the following tools into their lesson design:

  • Web-based programs
  • Learning Management Systems
  • Virtual Chat Rooms
  • Web-cams
  • Skype or FaceTime  (Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014, p. 332).

Technology tools should be capable of assisting teachers to instruct, monitor and assess within a learning environment that is both engaging and motivating for their students (Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014, p. 333).

The processes that result from such a scenario should be more

  • Individualised
  • Differentiated
  • Specialised
  • Dynamic(Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014, p. 333).

In all cases the aim should be to reflect the positivity relating to technical incorporation, and such action should be linked to learning, as using appropriate tools is the critical link to student success (Witte, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2014, p. 335).

References

Wang, V. (. (2014). Handbook of research on education and technology in a changing society. IGI Global. London: IGI Global.

Witte, M. M., Wohleb, E., & Skinner, L. (2014). Building Education and Technology Competencies for a Changing Society. In V. (. Wang, Handbook of Research on Education and Technology in a Changing Society (pp. 331-342). IGI Global.

 

AITSL

On By Margaret SimkinIn Reflection, standardsLeave a comment

The role of teachers in Australia is guided by the standards mandated for professional practice. Four seem to be critical in terms of Knowledge Networks for Educators.

Standard 4.5
Standard 4.5

There seems no debate about if ICT is used – this spells out how it will be used.

The same concept is reiterated in standard 3.4 as an inclusion in all resources expected to be incorporated into learning design.

Standards 6.2 and 6.3 seem to suggest that Knowledge Networking for Educators would be a valuable way in which to meet professional requirements.

Standard 3.4
Standard 3.4
Standard 6.2
Standard 6.2
6.3
Standard 6.3

References

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership: http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list

 

 

Types of Learning

On By Margaret SimkinIn blended learning, Collaborating, digital artefacts, digital literacy, effective teaching, Flipped classrooms, INF532, ReflectionLeave a comment

Personal development of instructional design for my students:

As our students are equipped with devices whole new ways of learning open up to us. Over the last few years I have exposed my students to PLN construction through offering lunchtime introductions to Twitter and LinkedIn, as well as using these tools, Facebook, and access to learning materials in online spaces.

In our region Internet provision is patchy and until recently I have used this as an excuse not to develop too much online material. Aaron Sams in:

Bergman, J. & Sams, A (2012) Flipped learning founders set the record straight in T.H.E. Journal. from: http://thejournal.com/articles/2012/06/20/flipped-learning-founders-q-and-a.aspx , offers a range of easy to provide solutions to the issue of Internet access: provide the content on a flash drive, CD or DVD for example.

For a number of years, I have experimented in a somewhat ad hoc manner with flipping my classroom using a class wiki and exporting lessons from my interactive whiteboard software and adding links to other materials. In the last two years, as senior students in my History Revolutions class have had access to devices I have given them blogging as a means of accessing and reflecting on material.

In the last 12 months, in addition to student technology, there have been a number of improvements to Microsoft Office products that have sped up the process of adoption. The most impact has been achieved with the collaborative OneNote app, which, as a Microsoft school, allows me to seamlessly add my students to a class notebook. In image 1 below you can see the different sections, and part of the name of my first student, with the rest of the class along the top in alphabetical order. The notebook offers me a space to create their “textbook” type materials, (teacher notebook) and each one of them gets their own “exercise book” for working in (you can see Harry’s tab), and we all get access to a collaborative space where I can set up work for them to do together.

In the collaborative space you can see who has added or altered which contribution by the colour-coding, and the student’s initials which automatically appear.

collaborative OneNote
The options within a collaborative OneNote notebook

 

Collaborative space
Collaborative space

 

Sharepoint home page for History Revolutions
Sharepoint home page for History Revolutions

 

Using Sharepoint I have been able to set up a Mosaic Live Tiles page (which still requires work) that is like a website but is only accessible within the school. This gives me the option of collecting any video clips I make and add to YouTube; any photographs that I have taken, and podcasts I create. This is a space that I am still conquering but which will allow seamless collection of data for student access.

Office Mix, an add-on for PowerPoint, which I investigated as an option for my artefact: http://thinkspace.csu.edu.au/msimkin/2015/04/28/artefact-design/,  will be very useful for converting my interactive whiteboard  flip-chart exports from previous years into film to support students through the subject timeline.

The learning from INF532 has pushed me to develop a greater range of supporting materials to assist my students to master their material. Referring to the table below I can now see a holistic and valid reason for using as many combinations of the different types of learning models in order to assist all learners and learning styles.

An approach to developing new learning
An approach to developing new learning

Adapted by June Wall from Michalowski, A. (2014). Planning for blended learning environments and measuring progress. Retrieved from: https://interact2.csu.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-289794-dt-content-rid-651236_1/courses/S-INF532_201530_W_D/module6/6_3_Instructional_design.html

As with all learning, the critical process is the designing the materials which will support students to develop their understanding. http://www.instructionaldesign.org/ is a very useful resource which collates all the theories, concepts and learning domains into a series of hyperlinked definitions and gives a ready reference to understanding the processes involved. http://www.slideshare.net/MikeKunkle/basic-instructional-design-principles-a-primer Adds some simple summaries which are of use as a quick reference.

Another easy to apply process is the ADDIE model (ADDIE Model, n.d.)

Instructional design supports the processes promoted to us at our school, such as Grift and Major’s Teachers as the Architects of Learning (Grift & Major, 2013).

The critical issue now is having the time to complete resource creation – a common complaint of teachers everywhere.

References

ADDIE Model. (n.d.). Retrieved March 25, 2015, from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADDIE_Model

Grift, G., & Major, C. (2013). Teachers As Architects Of Learning: Twelve Considerations For Constructing A Successful Learning Experience. Moorabbin: Hawker Brownlow Education.

 

 

Fis(c)hbowls etc.!

On By Margaret SimkinIn blended learning, Connecting, digital literacy, effective teaching, Flipped classrooms, knowledge networks, Reflection1 Comment

Module 6: Curriculum and learning design in a connected world.

The title for this post comes from Julie Lindsay’s blog and her follow up comments in another post. It was, therefore, imperative to find out what fishbowl technique actually is, and whether the concept might be useful for C21st educators to apply to their real or virtual learning experience design.

There is definitely a place for such a tactic in student-focused classrooms and also for adult participation in professional learning experiences. Designers of meaningful lessons based on Mystery Skype or Skype and author use a similar technique – allocating roles to participants to enable the process to unfold smoothly for the connected groups, and sharing the workload in a collaborative fashion. Fishbowl structure presents domination of any one individual during a debate or discussion.

The spelling in the title of this post is based on a pun of Julie’s during the development of her post when she believed that Karl Fisch was the creator of the technique. Knowledge networking resulted from this mistaken belief, with Karl participating in the online debate about the technique – and other connected learning experiences.

Further learning stemmed from this presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO9V9xvRPds&feature=youtu.be&t=6m12s

Theory and practice of connectivism in flat, global classrooms, are clearly dealt with real-world examples of different types of activities referenced. At about the 7-minute mark, Julie uses a new word: GLOCALISATION to sum up the type of knowledge networking involved. Cultural sensitivities must be considered when engaging with classes overseas.

At about the 10-minute mark, Julie comments that going global is a mindset, not a plane ticket.

Google I/O 2013 – Building an Online Education Platform using Google Technologies:

This video shows the range of considerations and developments Google has been working on to enable blended or flipped classrooms. The basis for driving this agenda come from the belief that the art of lecture is lost – we now have the ability to go back; lots of things about a book are better than a lecture; video production for supporting learning allow the luxury of rewinding and replaying until the process demonstrated or information presented is fully understood.

Jen Jonson explains what makes learning blended:

These terms are considered further in my next post.

ANT

On By Margaret SimkinIn INF532, knowledge networks, ReflectionLeave a comment

Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2010).Chapter 2:  Knowledge, innovation and knowing in practice pp. 24 – 39. Actor-network theory in education.  contribute the following ideas to the discussion based around their:

Actor

Network

Theory 

They contribute the following ideas to the discussion:

Perspectives of knowledge and knowledge production are seen as situated, embodied and distributed p.24.

ANT = a such a perspective challenges expertise to acknowledge its own mechanics. p.25.

It is dangerous to assume that competence resides in an individual p.26

Competence is an effect p.27 and is passed through organisations as a result of minute translations at mundane levels of everyday knowledge flow patterns p.28.

Activity is organised through the order or sequence which is applied to carrying out tasks p.28.

Unpacking is a means of making sense of the information that has been gathered p.30

Knowing is more a form of interacting and experimenting than a re-representation of information p. 31

Are we part of one world, or multiple worlds in which we dwell? p.32

Global redistribution is challenging the concepts and flows of information and adding new layers of control and definition of what constitutes knowledge. Multiple ontologies are not equally powerful and the impact of dominance of some over others needs to be monitored p.33

“Knowledge cannot be viewed as coherent, transcendent, generalizable and unproblematic; knowledge and the real merge together”

Knowledge can no longer be seen as a rhetoric of conclusions, but rather a rhetoric of contentions p.35.

Recognition of human and non-human linkages that are not stable, predictable or identifiable neutral or linear tunnels of knowledge flow but multiple interconnected forms requiring analysis and consideration p. 37.

Conflicted knowledge is often developed simultaneously, added to, modified and adjusted  by a variety of people 37.

Acknowledging ANT assists with avoiding exclusion and privilege in terms of knowledge p.37.

And going beyond the recommended chapter:

Logical meaning of concepts and processes applied to analyse education are less important than the investigations and analyses of educational processes that are carried out p.144.

Whichever way you look at it, it is important that these aspects of knowledge networking and learning are continually evaluated and assessed in order to ensure that knowledge development is sound and achieving the desired goals.