Techniques

In week 5 of the IT5670 course, we had a discussion on the different techniques presented in our reading that might be applied to our Web Conference sessions and how those applicable techniques might be altered as well. My first post (and maybe most beneficial) was about the idea of team teaching, which is something we started doing back in the first semester with the conference. We shared in facilitating the different discussions in our shell. This seemed helpful because with the shell being available 24 hours a day, it can be beneficial to have more than one facilitator available to respond to incoming posts and steer discussions where one person may not have time to constantly check on the forum and keep up with everything. I think this is different from a live classroom because one person can maintain the class that occurs during a set time.

Kerry Escobodo brought up some interesting points about the team teaching. She said she uses this style in teaching yoga and has found it sometimes useful because the other teacher can often share things she missed and also brings a different style. The down side, which Bender also discussed, is that there may be conflict in whose time it is to teach or ideas on just how the class should be taught. Bender also notes that it may cause confusion for the students as to who has the authority.

I also found the discussion on chatting interesting. Working with high school students, I am sure many of them are well versed in the world of chatting. It seems like many people in our class have a negative view of chatting. Concerns include confusion and the facilitator not realizing if some people are not participating. There was some discussion on grouping, which might help alleviate some of the problems, but the facilitator might have to find a way to jump into all these chats to keep an eye on what is being said and to steer the discussion. David Beattie had an interesting idea about sending people to new groups if a chat room got too full and then adding a facilitator. There was some discussion as to why this would not work. But I think there may be ways to set up groups ahead of time, maybe even schedule them for different times, so this resource could still be used, especially if it is something the students feel connected to and can respond to better. We aren’t using it for our Web Conference, and I’m not sure that it would fit in with my EdWeb either, but I still have a feeling it could be a valuable resource in teaching eLearning.

The Big World of Formative Evaluation

Week 4’s interview with Dr. Marty Tessmer and the discussion following it were very interesting to me. Patty Mills summed it up very appropriately by saying that had the discussion been a meal, she would have been stuffed. The topic seems huge, and there are many different ways to look at it. I have not had much formal work with formative evaluation and ended up learning a lot about it. Many questions came up during the discussion, many of them centering on the navigation aspect of our EdWeb projects. I started off with a post referring to what Dr. Tessmer had talked about during the interview dealing with navigation and how I was questioning my own navigation system. I was relieved to find that other classmates were tackling the same issue still! I appreciated the responses to the post with suggestions on who I should have evaluate my prototype. At this point, that will include both teachers, elearning instructors at my school, and students who will represent the group of people actually using the finished product. Linda Guillory helped me realize that having the students evaluate is one of the most important parts of the formative evaluation and that I should try to use learners of different abilities. So maybe I ask an A student who picks up on things very fast and then have another student who tends to struggle and might not instinctively know to click a certain link to get to a certain piece of information.

I appreciated the post from Armi Trenas questioning what the basis is of saying a formative evaluation has been done effectively. I was actually wondering that myself. From what I gather, it is effective if I am able to find out what things do not work and change them so that they do. I am still trying to figure out how to come up with my formative evaluation plan and how to measure its effectiveness. I am wondering if doing a few evaluations, one initially and then one after the prototype has been revised, would be one way to see if the first was effective.

There is still a lot more to learn on formative evaluation, and I think it will continue to be an interesting topic moving forward with the EdWeb project.

Discussion Facilitation

Week 3’s discussion centered around our reading of Tisha Bender’s Discussion-Based Online Teaching to Enhance Student Learning, specifically Chapter 6 about facilitating discussion. It came up in the discussion that many of the groups during the web conference had a lot of “silence.” So most of this week we considered what we could do better for the next conference now that we had some experience. Our Simulations group had a couple of discussions that went well and others we were excited about that did not get any posts for several days.

In our examination of what could be done better, Richard Stewart pointed out some good ideas on how to phrase the starter questions, such as giving a sentence to start. For our Simulations group, this might go something like, “I think simulations are useful for learning because…” So the participant feels more connected to the topic and more compelled to answer, instead of just asking, “Do you think simulations are useful for learning?” Kerry Escobado also brought up the idea of timing for the discussions, which I thought was very useful and something to really consider, especially looking at how the first conference went and what changes need to be made for the 2nd one. This got me thinking about how we could restructure things to make the next conference more successful.

I think my most valuable contribution during this discussion was: “One thing was that we introduced all of our topics at once, and it seemed like people wanted to do just one discussion at a time and in order (although the first discussion continued to get responses all week). Like you both said, maybe it is better to have fewer questions and time them better so participants can get involved. We may also need to rephrase the questions to promote discussion.” It has been very helpful to take a look back at things and get opinions from the rest of the class as to what works and what doesn’t. Issues involving timing, phrasing, quantity, and motivation are all things that we have a little better handle on and can now look at using more effectively.

5670 Web Conference Evaluation and Planning

Well, it has been good getting back into eLearning this semester. We started off having a discussion about the Web Conference from last year and working on coming up with questions and answers as a class so we can make some changes for the 2nd round. Before this discussion, I had an idea of some things that worked or did not work (ie. our Simulations group had a lot of questions asked about what the difference is between Simulations and Games that we were not quite prepared for beforehand). But actually getting into a whole discussion and coming up with solutions has helped me feel more confident about the next Web Conference.

I really appreciated the work Marilyn Czerwinski did in putting up all of the starter questions and getting the discussion going. Sometimes it can be daunting to start a big discussion like this, and nobody had said anything for a few days. Then David Beattie put together a list of questions from the evaluations done by Joni’s class which was very insightful and addressed some of the issues that our participants had. This will help us make the conference more useful and interesting for the people who will be visiting in February when we run it again.

I think my best contribution for this discussion was: “I think one of the issues that came up in our session was a question about the difference between Serious Games and Simulations. There was a lot of discussion back and forth, but I don't know that we ever really got to a clear distinction between the two. So my question is, can we get clear definitions together or would it be advantageous to combine the groups because of the overlap? If there are also other groups combining, then I would also suggest we do a little longer run of the conference, perhaps the 2 weeks of running them all at the same time?” This issue on the difference between Games and Simulations seemed to generate a lot of discussion, and I think that we could have some discussion on it and get them defined well and then move on so we can have people learn more about how they work and who they benefit. Then we will not spend all of our time on semantics in 2 different groups. I am definitely looking forward to seeing how this next conference goes now that we have one run under our belts and have worked together in groups and as a class to improve it for the 2nd round.

Week 9: The Last Word - Take 2

This week's discussion was a slightly different take on The Last Word discussion we had a couple of weeks before. In this one each person posted a quote from the reading that they found to be of value, and then each of the other people in the group posted a 250 word or less response. Then the initial poster got to put in a 25o word final say about why they chose that quote, what the group's response was, and what he or she still thought about the topic. I enjoyed the bigger limit on the word count because it felt like people were able to describe their thoughts more clearly. It was enough to say what they were thinking clearly but without boring everyone else by going on and on. Some people did step outside the initial setup by posting little comments to others, and this did not seem to distract from the overall conversation. I admit, I did this to give out some Karma points, and I noticed some others did as well, adding in little comments to say they liked what someone else had posted.

I think my best post this week came in response to the quote Jennifer McCarty picked about remedial instruction. It is still something I am thinking about:

"The content itself is rarely the problem and moving forward in a unit or session would create more work for the instructor in the long run if the student does not understand it in the beginning. Being able to humble yourself as the teacher and say you missed your mark and need to present the material in a different mode shows your commitment to students learning the information. This also will develop a deeper relationship between you and the students. I think the big key in this situation is being able to use the previous lesson or learning experience in the new or alternate presentation by referring to it, and not ignoring it as if it was a failure. You will still have the respect of your students and you can monitor if they may have learned any of the previous lesson from the new format. Ultimately if they do it would mean you have doubled up on the learning experiences?"

I think this was my best contribution because it takes a lot to say you just did not teach something well enough the first time and should work on still giving the students the material in the next lesson. I have been thinking about the costs involved in going back and making a whole new section for learners to catch up if they did not understand it the first time. The book suggested using different material, and I am not sure how feasible this would be. So it is something I am looking forward to learning more about…

Week 8: Reading Discussion

This week’s discussion centered around what we thought was the most valuable part of the assigned reading for the week (Horton’s chapters 6 and 7). The thing that we all talked the most about was the make-up of the lessons for our eLearning design. I started off the discussion sharing the example Horton used about having lessons be self-contained, such as recipe cards. He said to picture throwing them all up in the air and picking one up. You still have a whole lesson, and it is not dependant on a sequence and can be used to prepare the dish all on its own.

Joni came back and said that it might help to think of the learning section as a meal, where different lessons are like different dishes. My response was, "That is a wonderful idea! Not only to put the project together, but to be able to use a meal made up of different dishes and ingredients as an example as I have the kids work on different topics and then put them all together. Thanks for that! I had started thinking about the recipe idea in terms of groups of recipes like breads and having pumpkin bread, zucchini bread, etc. But I like the idea of the meal because the components can be a lot more varied but all important parts.”

This was my best contribution in the discussion because it took what I had found in the reading and put it into a more real example that I can put into use in my work. The EdWeb I am doing will consist of many different parts, so the recipe idea really seemed to fit, but thinking of them as parts of a whole meal has really encouraged me and given me some good ideas for working on the EdWeb project. I think it will also be a good visual example to give my students, as I would like to have them work on the different parts and eventually put together everything they have learned as a class. It seemed like this week the reading really helped the people who posted get excited about this project. I am looking forward to seeing what develops from it all…

Week 7: Informal Learning Discussion

This week’s discussion centered around the topic of informal learning. During the first part of the week, everyone in the class answered 5 different questions, and then during the 2nd half we had a discussion on what we found out about informal learning from those answers. The 5 questions were about what we talk about at home, what topics we would like to see covered in the class, what questions should be asked in this course to relate to our own lives, what is interesting about us outside of class, and what we might know more about than the instructors.

My best contribution came in the 2nd part of the week when we got into the discussion and how our answers related to eLearning. We had been just talking about things that are important to informal learners, such as how the learning will benefit them and how they can fit it into their busy lives. Motivation is one of the biggest factors that I noticed in the answers to the short questions. Many people said that the questions they wanted answered included something along the lines of “how will this benefit me?” or “what career opportunities will this afford me?” Then Joni asked how we can take what we have learned and apply it to the Web Conference that we are doing as groups. I answered:

“Joni, I think it's very important to remember what we learn here when planning the Web conference. These are not people signing up for a whole course, but they do hope to learn from it if they are going to the trouble of signing up and logging in. The top thing I see is to make it interesting and relative to them, or else what is the point? And using short segments will keep us from losing interest as these are probably busy people like us with other things going on. My EdWeb will be for students at the school I teach at, so it will not be informal, but I think that I will still need to use some of the same aspects, like making it interesting and using the shorter segments to keep the kids involved.”

This is an idea I can take back to my group as we work on our Web Conference, deciding what information to include and how to develop the discussions there. We had been thinking of doing several lessons, but one thing I know we have to do is be considerate of the amount of time these learners have available. The fact that they will be visiting 7 different topics is also something to pay attention to. They will not have a lot of time to devote to one particular topic if they are interested in more. This will be very useful in determining how much we should put out there, so I am glad we had the discussion and were able to focus on informal learning this week.

Week 6 Discussion Summary

This week, we were split into smaller groups of 5 people. Each person posted what they thought the most significant quote from the week's reading was. Then everyone in the group posted a short response to that, and finally the original poster had a final say on their own quote. It was an interesting way to run a discussion, although it seemed difficult to say everything on a topic in 50 or 100 words though and really come to a big conclusion on anything. It also seemed hard to advance the topic with such a restriction on the word and post limit. Our group talked about things such as developing a strong framework, using examples, spending more time on doing activities, using games, and deciding how much blending of classroom and eLearning there should be for a course.

My most valuable contribution was my initial post on the quote I found most significant:

“Many lectures have too much theory and not enough concrete, specific, realistic examples. Remember, not everyone can reason from general concepts to particular applications, or at least not without the help of examples that they can understand and apply.” (Horton, p. 64)

"This part of the lesson centered around using examples in eLearning. When the instructor cannot see the student’s response during the course or lesson (where the student’s face or questions can convey lack of understanding), it is important to have included many examples designed to make sure the concepts can be understood and applied. Having more examples might help make up for the lack of direct interaction between students or with the instructor by giving the student more concrete evidence on which to base their learning instead of trying to draw from theory alone."

I feel this was my best contribution because it introduced an idea that is very important to consider when designing eLearning, something that must be kept in mind. It is something that will be useful in our Web Conference coming up. Being able to give good examples will help people understand the topic and be able to discuss it better. Using examples helps people understand topics and be able to apply them to their lives. In the discussion that ensued we came to the conclusion that the examples needed to be valid and realistic to be effective. Otherwise, they may come across as a waste of time to the learner.

I am looking forward to the future discussions, since I found it a little hard to do a lot of in depth focus on this one. I will have to consider more the usefulness of this type of discussion as compared to other methods.

Week 5 Discussion Summary

Our discussion this week centered around the question of whether or not we can remain true to our instructional values if we have student-content, student-student, or student-instructor interaction. We began the week with an Xcel spreadsheet listing the instructional values on one axis and the types of interaction on the other so we could see which types of activities would match up with both the values and interactions. Early in the discussion we came to the consensus that we needed variety in order to cover all the values. Then we moved on to talk in more detail about keeping the social aspect as part of the learning. This including different ways that students could obtain the social aspect even if they were not working with other students in a classroom.

My best contribution to the discussion was a response to Joni’s question about whether we could be true to our values if we had student-student, student-content, or student-instructor interaction. My response was,

“I think we can still be true to our values, but maybe not meet all of them in one particular activity. Over the length of a course we could still be true to the values because there is time for all 3 different types of interaction, such as we have experienced in this class so far. But if we used only one type such as student-content for a whole course, I don't think that we could stick to all the values. I do think the same is true for learning in a classroom too though. It is best when there is a good variety.”

I feel this was my best contribution because it got to the heart of the question and applied to my teaching in a classroom and eLearning. As an instructor this is something that I need to work on in my classes every day. It is important to keep a variety of activities to meet different instructional values in different ways so as to utilize as many as possible over the length of a course. We all need to keep this in mind as we learn how to develop eLearning because the values are still an essential part of the learning. This is definitely something to keep in mind as we go forward with this class and the rest of the eLearning program.

Discussion Summary from Week 4

The discussion for Week 4 began with our group questioning the difference between philosophies and theories. It seemed a little unclear in our reading, but I feel that as a group we did a good job of coming up with good definitions and a basis for our discussion. After that it became more about whether anyone has to teach using a different philosophy while teaching or if we ever change our philosophies or adjust the class design to fit our personal beliefs. And finally we were discussing the use of new technology in schools, such as ipods and cell phones, for learning purposes. There was some interesting insight as to whether one’s philosophies changed or if one particular person may have a philosophy that is made up of a blend of different ideas that may not necessarily coincide with what our text has categorized.

My best contribution to the discussion was a post answering Jodi’s question of, “Does anyone have an experience where you intentionally chose a strategy for instruction that contradicts your philosophy of teaching/learning? If so, what happened?” I answered with an example about a class I am teaching for a colleague who uses a different style. In order to keep the class consistent for all of the students, I try to use the same techniques he does. I think this was my best contribution because it was a personal example used to answer the question of another classmate. And it helped segue the discussion into the next part, about whether we ever have to change our philosophies. In the example I used, I did not change my philosophy but structure my teaching towards someone else’s philosophy. This may be necessary in certain situations one may come across this conflict in designing eLearning, having to choose to teach to someone else’s philosophies or adjusting one’s own to complete the goals of the education.

I feel like another important part of my contribution was the answering of one question and asking another to keep the discussion moving. It did not generate many responses in the same thread, but I still feel like asking new questions helps us keep thinking about the topic and generate further insights together. This week’s discussion was very interesting and a good one to be involved in as it seemed to be setting up the framework for our learning about designing eLearning.