Designing an online subject #EDUC90970

When it was time to design my own subject for the Facilitating Online Learning #EDUC90970 assignment, there was no doubt my passion project could finally take shape: design a subject for higher education teachers on how to promote self-regulated learning (SRL) in their own subjects.

Based on knowledge acquired during the Graduate Certificate in University Teaching, these were the steps I followed to design a first draft of the subject:

1) Defining context and learners

This subject would be part of a graduate certificate for university teachers, such as the GCUT. Learners would be university teachers with experience in teaching (some with a lot of years of experience!) who are looking to further improve their teaching and learning practice. Cohorts are typically small, around 15 – 20 learners.

2) Defining aim of the subject and learning outcomes

Describing the aim of a subject and its learning outcomes is crucial to achieve constructive alignment. Constructive alignment is when the learning outcomes, activities and assessments are related (Biggs, 2014). This increases the chances of students’ activity to be aligned with the intended learning outcomes of the subject.

Popenici and Millar (2015) have written a very practical guide on how to write learning outcomes. Here are the learning outcomes for this course:

At the end of this course, students should be able to (1) summarise SRL concepts and models, (2) critically evaluate empirical research on strategies to promote SRL, and (3) adapt and apply these strategies to multiple teaching and learning situations in higher education.

3) Defining a pedagogical approach and strategies

I believe people learn creating meaning through their experience, particularly when interacting with others. This is aligned with social constructivism theory (Doolittle & Camp, 1999). Here are eight factors that inform a social constructivist pedagogical approach:

Authentic learning
Social negotiation and mediation
Relevant content and skills
Understanding of learners’ prior knowledge
Formative assessment
Promote self-regulated learning
Teachers as guides and facilitators
Encourage multiple perspectives of content

Based on this approach, I chose the following pedagogical strategies:

Project-based learning: This would allow them to follow their own needs and interest in the subject, in something relevant to their practice.
Flipped classroom: This would help class time to focus on collaboration, discussion and resolving misconceptions.
Peer learning: Many benefits have been associated with peer learning (Boud, Cohen & Sampson, 2014). For this subject, this would also be linked to providing them with the opportunity to be exposed to multiple teaching and learning situations through peer assessment.
Reflective learning: This would have a two-fold benefit for this subject. First, it would address the social constructivist factor mentioned above: promote self-regulated learning. Second, it would be modelling learners on how to promote self-regulated. That is, they would be experiencing putting together a learning diary throughout the subject (Broadbent, Panadero & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2020), which could be one of the strategies they could implement in their own subjects.

A great overview on the definitions and connections of pedagogical approach, strategies, tasks and activities can be found on Peter Goodyear’s paper “Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice.” (2005).

3) Defining tasks and activities

With a clear pedagogical approach and strategies in mind, it was time to define the tasks and how they would be distributed over the weeks. The Conversational Framework by Diana Laurillard (2013) was a great tool to help design the course, as it is very practical and well-linked to the use of technology. So after reading some materials about the ABC learning design method (Young & Perović, 2016), which is based on Laurillard’s framework, I started to work on the course design. I really enjoyed using Treves’ (2020) template in Padlet for this:

Made with Padlet — ABC design method template on Padlet (Treves, 2020)

This step mainly included defining the main tasks for the subject, which would be:

Blog posts and comments reviewing SRL main concepts and models: This can be a great way for learners to actively interact with the core knowledge of the subject, while providing an opportunity to interact with their peers. An interesting outcome of this activity is that posts and comments become a learning resource for learners throughout (and beyond) the subject. It also provides multiple perspectives of the content.
Presentation on chosen instructional strategy to promote SRL: This would require them to conduct an investigation of potential strategies they would implement in their own subject, and putting together a presentation for their colleagues. Peer feedback on their presentations would be another opportunity for them to interact with their colleagues.
Main project assessment: In the main project, learners would revise their current subject curriculum to include strategies to promote SRL. The whole process would include their peers in the following order: submitting a written project, which would be reviewed by two peers (and they would review two other projects), then a final presentation considering their feedback.
Learning diary: Learners would keep a reflective diary (with specific SRL prompts) to document their learning journey during the subject.

Although the ABC design method was very useful, I felt I needed another type of visualisation to help me better understand the connection between all tasks in a sequenced way before breaking them down into weeks. So I used Herrington and Oliver’s (2002) learning design visualisation, which is divided into resources, tasks and supports, with arrows for sequence. My draft looked like this:

Learning design visualisation connecting resources, tasks and supports (Herrington & Oliver, 2002)

I included learning diary as a support rather than a task as its function would be to promote reflection and awareness to support and improve their learning process. But I guess it could also be considered as a task that would last for the whole course.

I then moved to a weekly distribution of the tasks in Padlet. Below is my final draft:

4) Defining technology to use

First, institutional constraints. The course would be hosted in Canvas, as this is the institution learning management system. So all resources, main communication and record of grades would be there.

For the flipped classroom, Kaltura would be used to produce interactive asynchronous videos. For the synchronous meetings, Zoom would be used, with breakout rooms for small group and pair discussions. I really enjoyed the use of Google Slides by Caitlyn Goudan (see it on this video on the 46min mark) in our class for these collaborations, and also Poll Everywhere, Padlet or Zoom Annotation for interactivity.

For the main projects, which is where learners would make the most use of technology for production, I would provide them with a few options. If they wanted, they could use Canvas ePortfolio for both their Blog Posts and Learning Diary. Or, if they prefer, they could use their own website (existing or new) for this purpose. Or mix and match (Canvas for learning diary and personal website for blog posts). The idea is to provide them with the opportunity to break free from the closed LMS environment and start a broader interaction with the teaching and learning community. This is aligned with concepts related to the Heutagogy (or Self-determined learning; Blaschke & Hase, 2019), a learner centric ecology of resources (Luckin, 2008) and creating a community of inquiry (Garrison, 2007) that could continue after the end of the subject. For the same purpose, I would encourage the use of Twitter. Below is a diagram of the Ecology of Resources for this subject:

5) Defining subject evaluation and improvement

Following the educational research design model (McKenney & Reeves, 2012), this draft of the subject is just the beginning. After its first iteration, it would then be evaluated to further improve its effectiveness in teaching and learning from an evidence-based approach – furthering both practice and theory. Due to it being a subject with a small cohort, evaluation would be quite straight forward. But considering my interest in learning analytics, I would also examine learners’ data to better understand their engagement patterns (I quite like this paper about how to align learning analytics with learning design: Lockyer, Heathcote & Dawson, 2013).

This has been my journey so far creating this subject. I have presented an initial draft to my #EDUC90970 colleagues, which you can see in the video below (or access the presentation here):

Hopefully I will get some useful feedback to further improve the learning design before moving on to the next step: creating a prototype of the subject in Canvas.

References

Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA News, 36(3), 5. Retrieved from https://www.tru.ca/__shared/assets/Constructive_Alignment36087.pdf

Blaschke, L. M., & Hase, S. (2019). Heutagogy and digital media networks. Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.24135/pjtel.v1i1.1

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (Eds.). (2014). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other. Routledge.

Broadbent, J. & Panadero, E, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (online first 2020). Effects of mobile app learning diaries vs online training on specific self-regulated learning components.
Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-
020-09781-6

Doolittle, P. E., & Camp, W. G. (1999). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of vocational and technical education, 16(1), 23-46. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ598590

Garrison, D R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ842688

Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82–101. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1344

Goodyear, P. (2015). Teaching as design. Herdsa review of higher education, 2(2), 27-50. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/33IWgLX

Herrington, J. & Oliver, R. (2002). Description of Online teaching and learning (Edith Cowan University Online Unit IMM4141 in Graduate Certificate in Online Learning). [Online]. Retrieved August 8, 2020, from Learning Designs Web site: http://www.learningdesigns.uow.edu.au/exemplars/info/PDFs/LD20.pdf

Laurillard, D. (2013). Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.

Lockyer, L., Heathcote, E., & Dawson, S. (2013). Informing pedagogical action: Aligning learning analytics with learning design. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1439-1459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479367

Luckin, Rosemary. (2008). The learner centric ecology of resources: A framework for using technology to scaffold learning. Computers & Education, 50(2), 449-462. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.018

Popenici, S., & Millar, V. (2015). Writing Learning Outcomes: a practical guide for academics. Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne.

Treves, R. (2020, July 24). ABC Workshops at distance via padlet [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.richardtreves.com/abc-workshops-at-distance-via-padlet/

Young, C. & Perović, N. (2016). Rapid and Creative Course Design: As Easy as ABC? in Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd International Conference on Higher Education Advances,HEAd’16, 21-23 June 2016, València, Spain (Eds) J. Domenech, M. Vincent-Vela, R.Peña-Ortiz, E. de la Poza, D. Blazquez. Available from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.058

Featured image by Laurenz Kleinheider on Unsplash

Mixing and matching teaching and learning approaches #EDUC90970

As part of my journey in the “Facilitating Online Learning” subject (#EDUC90970), I continued to read more about Heutagogy – or self-determined learning. Self-determined learning is a humanist approach to teaching and learning focused on learners’ autonomy and agency during the learning process. It differs from traditional pedagogy and self-directed learning on the degree in which learners are involved in shaping their own learning experience. In self-determined learning, learners can help define their own learning objectives and assessments.

According to Blaschke and Hase (2019), self-determined learning sits on a continuum that includes Pedagogy, Andragogy (self-directed learning) and Heutagogy (self-determined learning). These different approaches vary on the level of teacher support and student autonomy. Below are four images representing their characteristics (identified as Education 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0, respectively; Gerstein, 2014):

Although for the majority of the current higher education system adopting a self-determined learning approach may seem like a distant utopia due to many constraints (e.g., large classes), it seems to be a good fit for my own teaching. I mainly teach highly autonomous and motivated higher education teachers on how to use learning analytics in their own teaching and learning (professional development workshops). However, there are some key concepts that I believe are crucial for them to be familiar with before even thinking about using learning analytics. A more traditional approach seems more appropriate for this part of the workshop.

Luckily, it’s not all or nothing when deciding what teaching and learning approach would be the best fit for our courses. We can mix and match them, according to our cohort, content and environment (Kenyon & Hase, 2013). We just need to be aware of their characteristics and counter-balance the downfalls with evidence-based instructional interventions.

For example, one of the downfalls of traditional approaches to teaching and learning is that they are not quite as motivating as in self-directed and self-determined learning experiences. While in the latter, learners’ motivation is fuelled by their autonomy and particularly freedom to pursue their own interest; in traditional approaches students mainly listen to lectures or read texts. The use of evidence-based practices to support students’ motivation can help to deal with this issue, such as using strategies to catch and hold their interest (Bolkan & Griffin, 2018).

On the other hand, one of the downfalls of self-determined learning is that many students may not be prepared to regulate their own learning in such autonomous environments (Kenyon & Hase, 2013). In this case, scaffolding (or other types of support) may be necessary to promote self-regulated learning (Dignath & Veenman, 2020).

References

Blaschke, L. M., & Hase, S. (2019). Heutagogy and digital media networks: Setting students on the path to lifelong learning. Pacific Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.24135/pjtel.v1i1.1

Bolkan, S., & Griffin, D. J. (2018). Catch and hold: Instructional interventions and their differential impact on student interest, attention, and autonomous motivation. Communication Education, 67(3), 269-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2018.1465193

Dignath, C., & Veenman, M. V. (2020). The Role of Direct Strategy Instruction and Indirect Activation of Self-Regulated Learning—Evidence from Classroom Observation Studies. Educational Psychology Review, 1-45. https://doi-org.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/10.1007/s10648-020-09534-0

Gerstein, J. (2014, December 1). Experiences in Self-Determined Learning: Moving from Education 1.0 Through Education 2.0 Towards Education 3.0 [Blog post]. https://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/experiences-in-self-determined-learning-moving-from-education-1-0-through-education-2-0-towards-education-3-0/

Kenyon, C., & Hase, S. (2013). Heutagogy fundamentals. In S. Hase & C. Kenyon (Eds), Self-determined learning: Heutagogy in action, (pp. 7-18). Bloomsbury.

Fostering cognitive presence in online courses #EDUC90970

We all want our students to be cognitively engaged in our courses. We want them to think critically, have a deep understanding of the topic and reflect about their own learning. But, how can we achieve this?

Previous research has found that successful online courses create a community of learners with a safe space for discourse so they can achieve common purposes and inquiry (Garrison, 2007). In such environments, students feel comfortable and stimulated to be intellectually involved.

In the literature, this has been referred to as a community of inquiry. The video below presents a brief overview of this topic and of the community of inquiry framework for online learning, which is also presented in a figure below.

What is a community of inquiry? How does it apply to online learning?

Community of Inquiry Framework (based on Garrison, 2011)

In the community of inquiry framework, cognitive presence intersects with both social and teaching presence. From my brief readings on this topic so far, here is what I gathered we can do to foster cognitive presence in these two overlaps, and that I hope to focus on when developing the online subject as part of my “Facilitating online learning” assignment:

Supporting discourse

Apparently, open communication does not naturally progress to an academic relationship, in which students begin to collaborate and solve problems together. This needs to be fostered through collaborative activities that promote a sense of purpose. Basically, having a discussion board open and expect students to magically start collaborating does not happen. Frequent, purposeful and quality interactions should be part of the learning design of a subject.

Regulating learning

Another false expectation is that students will regulate their own learning. By this I mean that they will plan, monitor, adapt and reflect about their own learning experience. We may expect to see such skills on graduate students, but not so much in first year undergraduate ones. The approach to this issue is two-fold: the teacher can help the student to regulate their learning (co-regulation), while explicitly modelling the process to assist in the students’ development of their own set of regulated learning skills (self-regulation). Examples of support of regulated learning include clarifying task details, being more directive during assignments, proposing the use of learning strategies and assisting with movement through tasks.

(P.S. Self-regulated learning is one of the main topics of my research, so I’m really looking forward to putting my knowledge into practice.)

(P.P.S. I noticed that early versions of the framework had this intersection named “Selecting content”. I’m curious to know more about this change!)

References

Garrison, D R. (2007). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), 61-72. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ842688

Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.