ADTED 470 Intro to DE - Final

Learning objects hold great promise for distance education and e-learning because it is “a means of achieving efficiencies and enhanced flexibility in instructional design and course development” (Moisey & Ally, 2007, p.323). Moore and Kearsley (2010) suggested that we observe the trend in the “development of a universe of marketable learning objects…that could be bought and sold by different institutions for assembling into their different educational programs” (p.281). During the movement in the learning object economy, there were many definitions offered for what constitute a learning object. At that same time, considerable efforts were expended to standardize metadata elements for identification, search, and retrieval of learning objects (LOs) in the computer-mediated learning field (Polsani, 2003). A clear definition and consistent lexicon would help eliminate any misunderstanding and confusion in the use of and research on LOs.

McGreal (2004) suggested that digital objects should have a stated educational purpose and defined LOs “as any reusable digital resource that is encapsulated in a lesson or assemblage of lessons grouped in units, modules, courses, and even programmes. A lesson can be defined as a piece of instruction, normally including a learning purpose or purposes.” In comparison, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers’ offers a broad definition in its Learning Objects Metadata (LOM) standard document as “any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology supported learning” (IEEE, 2002). Wiley (2002) narrowed the definition to exclude non-digital resources and Polsani (2003) provided more details by defining LOs as “an independent and self-standing unit of learning content that is pre-disposed to reuse in multiple instructional contexts” (section 2.2).

According to Polsani (2003) there is “a broad understanding among the members of the LO community about the functional requirements of LOs” (section 1), namely, accessibility, reusability, and interoperability. The potential of LOs for the military prompted extensive research and development efforts associated with the SCORM initiative (Moisey & Ally, 2007). The purpose is to integrate “a set of related technical standards, specifications, and guidelines designed to meet SCORM’s high-level requirements—accessible, interoperable, durable, and reusable content and systems” (Advanced Distributed Learning, 2004). For LOs to be used they must be easily located and retrieved from the repositories in which they are housed. Therefore, proper tagging is essential to create metadata or “data about data” for the LOs to be stored and referenced in the database. On reusability, once LOs are created it should be able to function in different instructional context. Interoperability refers to LOs being independent of both delivery media and knowledge management systems (Polsani, 2003). To facilitate the storage of LOs in a repository, it has to be in a digital format to be searched and retrieved electronically through the Internet.
    

With the trend towards creation and use of learning objects, how would this affect the roles of instructor? On effective teaching at a distance, there are three key interactions involved: learner- content, learner-instructor and learner-learner (Moore, 1989) and in the theory of transactional distance, there are three key interactive components that influence (reduce or increase) the cognitive and psychological space between instructors and learners, namely dialogue, structure and learner autonomy (Moore and Kearsley, 2010).  Note that the original theory of transactional distance was written in the 1970s from primarily an independent learner perspective, which focuses on the connection between the instructor and learner (Shattuck & Tan, 2012). But today, interactive learning objects and edu-games are being used for teaching. Will productive exchange be affected with the increasing use of LOs in designing distance education (DE) courses? It seems not as studies by Docherty et al. (2005), Kong and Kwok (2005), and Reimer and Moyer (2005) indicated that only moderate success was achieved by higher ed students when LOs were used with minimal interaction from an instructor. In addition, I have observed similar results in the use of VBS simulation games that were designed for specialist warrant officers to teach Section Ambush and Quick Attack to military trainees. As with the observations in the field study by Lowe et al. (2010), students needed guidance to focus on what is critical to the learning task, and how the instructor chooses to use the LOs is also critical for successful implementation. Clearly, we have not yet reached a level of sophistication in LO development that would render human instructors redundant.

[only part of the final paper is being shared here]

ADTED 470 Intro to DE # 3

     We are in an era where mobility and connectedness are transforming many aspects of societies around the world, and in education there is a growing synergy between mobile learning and distance education.  Hence my question, “does mobile technology enhance learning.” I hope to find out more about the effectiveness of mobile learning in distance education.
     In the theory of transactional distance, there are three key interactive components that influence (reduce or increase) the cognitive space between instructors and learners, namely dialogue, structure and learner autonomy (Moore and Kearsley, 2010).  From our discussion forum with Dr. Shattuck (2012), it is clear that the “emphasis of transactional distance is on the productive exchange between instructor and student.” On effective teaching at a distance, there are three key interactions involved: learner- content, learner-instructor and learner-learner (Moore, 1989).  Drawing from these theories and current research studies, I hope to find out more about the use of mobile technology as an effective way of learning at a distance.
     Peng et al (2009) offers a theoretical framework that is organised in a hierarchical manner which starts with the m-learning infrastructure at the bottom (learners and tools), moving to pedagogical methods (constructivism and lifelong learning theories) and ends with the vision of ubiquitous knowledge construction. The pedagogy for m-learning is drawn from constructivism, social constructivism and cognitive apprenticeship that support the ideas of collaborative learning and education for mobile people.
The need to provide basic health care for a population size of 1 billion is a tall order. Vyas et al (2010) describes how this need is met by facilitating clinical education and training at remote secondary hospital sites across India. Despite logistical and cultural challenges, the medical college and partnership with US successfully met the key goals to enhance clinical training at remote training sites using mobile technology that is supported through an institutional hub.

     Using authentic and situated learning in diverse (geographical) and challenging (internet access) environments, Beckmann (2010) showed in her development study that “mobile technologies offer opportunities for on-going access to distance education that can be pursued off-campus and transnationally with the same peer-centred approaches available on-campus, enhancing authenticity of both content and context.”

     In an experimental study on 120 third year university students studying (History, Economics and Political Science) by Chandran (2010), the results showed that mobile learners scored higher than conventional learners.

     Koszalka and Ntloedibe-Kuswani (2010) synthesized study findings on m-learning and concluded that the results from convenience samples are “not generalizable to other contexts, audiences, or locations….it is questionable whether much has been learned about the use of m-learning as a way to enhance learning.” However, they agreed that studies have suggested that m-learning has the potential to extend education resources by opening access to disadvantaged groups such as women, rural poor, and people with disability. Another positive observation is that those who use m-technology showed higher ownership in the learning process.

     M-learning is about mobility and refers to the phenomenon of learning with portable technologies (which include but is not limited to handheld computers, MP3 players, note books and mobile phones). Clearly, learning is not situated on technology alone but research has shown that mobile learners are more engaged and responsible. My interest is to explore further on military training courseware that are or will be developed for use on smartphones or iPAD – will it enhance learning? From the types of interaction and theory of transactional distance, I would also like to find out if productive exchange between instructor and learner (dialogue) can be substituted with high interactivity that is afforded by sophisticated technologies (learner interface). A survey method would be used to gather data for analysis.   

References

Beckmann, E. A. (2010). Learners on the move: mobile modalities in development studies. Distance Education, 31 (2), 159–173.

Koszalka, T.A. & Ntloedibe-Kuswani, G.S. (2010). Literature on the safe and disruptive learning potential of mobile technologies. Distance Education, 31(2), 139–157

Peng, H., Su, Y.J, Chou, C. & Tsai, C.C. (2009). Ubiquitous knowledge construction: mobile learning re-defined and a conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46 (2), 171–183.

Vyas, R., Albrightb, S., Walker, D., Zachariah, A. & Lee, M.Y. (2010). Clinical training at remote sites using mobile technology: an India–USA partnership. Distance Education, 31(2), 211–226.

 
Chandran, S. (2010). E-Education in Multicultural Setting: The Success of Mobile Learning. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 70, 2010.
 
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6

Moore, M. and Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A Systems View. California: Wadsworth

ADTED 470 #2 Instructor Intervention

To teach is to impart knowledge or give instructions to the learner (dictionary.com). Compared to teaching in a traditional classroom, teaching at a distance can be challenging when instructors are not able to anticipate how students will react to what is written, recorded or broadcast via television.  Feedback mechanisms will allow students to communicate their experience and expectations but inexperienced instructors will have difficulty unless they learn how “to anticipate student responses to different events and how to deal with them” (Moore and Kearsley, 2005). To address issues on whether instructors interfere too much or do not intervene enough, we should first look at the key functions of instructors in distance education (DE) and identify characteristics of good teaching in DE.

The key functions of the instructor in DE can be grouped into types of activity which pertains to teaching, student progress, and learner support. In the teaching function, the instructor is expected to engage students by elaborating on the course content, to supervise and moderate discussions, as well as to supervise individual and group projects. Grading of assignments, providing feedback on student progress, keeping student records, helping students manage their study, and motivating students are all part of the second set of activities that pertain to student progress.  In the learner support function, instructors are expected to answer or refer questions on administrative, technical and counseling matters, to represent students with the school administration as well as evaluate course effectiveness (Moore and Kearsley, 2005).

The provision of a good online course design and instructors with good teaching skills should be able to help students increase their knowledge, comprehension and application skills for the course enrolled. Having good instructors will also reduce unnecessary student anxieties that could result from performance expectation that is not properly communicated, or lack of timely feedback on the student’s progress.

From an operant conditioning perspective, [positive] feedback has a direct effect on behavior. Feedback can also enhance performance indirectly by giving learners information about how they can improve. Motivation theorists suggest that feedback has an additional indirect effect on behavior: it enhances performance to the extent that it affirms an individual’s sense of competence and overall self-worth (Ormrod, 2008).

Clearly, when online instructors do not communicate expectations and or monitor student’s progress closely and intervene in a timely manner (before the next assignment is due), issues will arise with the motivation and performance of their students in distance education.

One DE experience I had was with a TEFL Online program. It had the basic course design in place but my student experience was not a good one (at that time) as there was no intervention in the self-paced study program. When I submitted my assignments, the tutor took about a week to provide grading and feedback. His response to some of my email enquiries took longer than the expected three business days. Although I took responsibility to plan, as well as take an active role in my learning, the anxiety level increased over a period of four months and I was not able to complete half of the course. Finally, I lost the motivation to continue with that online study. Clearly, without sufficient learner-instructor/tutor interaction and no learner-learner interaction, it was most difficult to learn a new skill in teaching English as a foreign language.

In contrast, my experience with the Penn State University online graduate course is a positive one. Perhaps it is because we are learning about DE and experiencing it at the same time. In any case, reasons for my positive experience with this online course include: good instructor facilitation that yielded high learner-content, learner-learner, and learner-instructor interactions. Contributions from both students and instructor to the discussion forum (DF) stimulated thinking. The instructor’s summary of the weekly DF is helpful and affirms her connection with the class. The schedule for the submission of written assignments and graded participation for the formal discussion are both well-paced, each once over three weeks of class.    

In response to the statement “some instructors interfere too much,” what I can think of is if an online instructor offers suggestions too often (e.g. daily basis). This can become a hindrance when students do not have enough time to explore and process additional information.

In conclusion, students who are active in the learning process, coupled with purposeful intervention from online instructors, should have a successful experience of distance education.

References

Moore, M.G. & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A Systems View (2^nd ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing

Ormrod, J.E. (2008). Human Learning (5^th ed). New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall

 

ADTED 470 Intro to DE #1

This is a brief write up on the scope of distance education, the types and collaborative structure.

When we talk about Distance Education (or DE in short) you might think of Correspondence or Independent Study. That was how it began. A practical definition of DE can be found as follows (Moore and Kearsley, 2005):

 

Distance education is planned learning that normally occurs in a different place from teaching, requiring special course design and instruction techniques, communication through various technologies, and special organizational and administrative arrangements.

 

In this generation, there is prevalent use of technology in the classroom to enhance learning. With this context, teaching in the classroom is complemented by technology but this is not the same as teaching that is dependent on technology (Moore and Kearsley, 2005).  This differentiation should help to clarify some aspects of DE.

 

Consider distance education as a system that comprises these subsystems:

• Sources of knowledge
• Course design
• Delivery of learning materials
• Teacher-student interaction via technologies
• Learners in their learning environments
• Management and administration

The decision on the source of knowledge that is to be taught - this would be provided by a single or dual mode institution such as a university, college or school.

 

Designing of the course, this would require instructional designers to work with content experts to structure the material so that learning is made simple.

 

A subsystem would be required for the delivery of courses to the learners, example as in the use of a Learning Management System (LMS).

 

Teacher interaction with learners as they use the materials to create knowledge - the learning environment, these are also components of DE.

 

Last but not least, the management and administration of resources is important and critical to ensure that the total system is sustainable and production quality high.   

 

The methods and issues of DE can only be understood from the historical background. DE evolved through five historical generations, from correspondence study (CE) being the first to computer and internet-based virtual classes today. According to Moore and Kearsley, correspondence study began in the 1880s with the invention of cheap and reliable postal services in the United States. CE was also called “home study” by the early for-profit schools and “independent study” by the universities.

 

Following CE was teaching to masses via broadcast radio in the 1920s and TV in the 1930s. The third generation was characterized by a new way of organizing education (systems approach) and the concept of Open Universities was birthed with credits to a former US naval officer, Charles Wedemeyer.

 

Next in the 1980s, courses were offered with real-time group interaction by way of audio and video conferencing and delivered by telephone, satellite, cable and computer networks.

 

The scope of DE includes home study, independent study for higher education, Open University, interactive television, and internet online learning.

 

Some DE agencies available in or to Singapore are:

• K-12 International Academy for the Americas/Virginia, Europe/Switzerland, Middle East/Dubai, Asia/Singapore and other countries
• The Learning Institute
• Open University at Singapore Institute of Management which started in 1992 with the pioneer Open University United Kingdom, OU Hong Kong in 1997 and Canada’s leading distance education and online university - Athabasca University, in 2007

 [Spr'12 with Dr. Kay Shattuck, who is also Director of Research at Quality Matters]