Open Course Learning

As our thirst for education and learning continues to grow, along with the advances in technological tools and capabilities, and greater access to this technology, so too are expanding the methods and means with which to provide education and learning opportunities. Open source learning (OSL) is one of these growing methods of providing instruction. This post will consider the aspects of OSL, and its effectiveness in providing content and maximizing the learning opportunity for students. In particular, the OSL environment provided by Yale University will be the focus. It can be accessed at:  http://oyc.yale.edu/.

Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek (2009) outline critical components in the designing process as being the: learners, content, method, materials, environment, and technology. They continue by stating, for successful learning to take place, the importance of these components interacting with one another in a balanced manner with no one component being of greater significance or value. With this being the case, Yale’s OSL falls a little short in that it exists as a one-way learning environment, in terms of interaction and/or communication between learners and the instructor. However, on Yale’s OSL website, it clearly states the University acknowledges the best education is that which is built upon direct interactions among teachers, students, and staff (http://oyc.yale.edu/about#q2). Yale also indicates a goal of their OSL environment to be in making an important contribution in expanding access to educational resources via Internet technologies (http://oyc.yale.edu/about#q2). Most certainly is this goal accomplished! With adult learners possessing the traits, among others, of being more self-directed, and self-disciplined, with their own learning goals in mind (Simonson, et al., 2009), I would strongly suspect the adult learners accessing Yale OSL courses would be well aware of and prepared for the learning environment’s lower levels of interactivity.

Overall, I am quite impressed with Yale’s OSL course offerings. The offerings are designed in a very organized manner, creating an intuitive, easy to navigate environment, which is an important aspect for the learner (Simonson et al., 2009). Yale’s OSL course offerings also provide a range of resources to allow for learners accessing with various capabilities that consist of high and low level technologies. This too is an important component of effective distance learning (Simonson et al., 2009). Content is provided in formats including text-based transcripts for lectures, audio files, video files, and PowerPoint files. Additionally, the audio and video media are offered in formats to accommodate both low and high bandwidth connections. The high bandwidth capable video files included closed captioning for learners. While listening to a lecture from one professor, I found the closed captioning to be quite helpful in that the professor had a rather thick accent. Including closed caption with the video allowed this learner to understand all of the professor’s lecture. A range of learning styles has been accommodated for, to a degree, in this OSL environment. Content can be accessed from the website in addition to the option of downloading audio, video, or text files for access off-line and/or at a later time.

Although two-way communication in this OSL learning environment is not apparent, what does exist includes: information to assist learners in the event of technical difficulties; answers to frequently asked questions regarding Yale’s open courses; and the opportunity to offer feedback, through a survey, on any particular OSL course and/or Yale’s OSL environment in general. Feedback and clear instructions are yet other components of a successful distance learning environment (Simonson et al., 2009). One other item to consider as a less-than-ideal component for distance learning is the course syllabi offered for the various courses. A very complete syllabus, addressing learning objectives is a key for this learning environment (Piskurich and Chauser). In looking through several syllabi, I was unable to identify specific objectives for any course. The contents of each syllabus appeared to be general in nature.

In summary, I believe Yale’s OSL environment is exceptional! Despite the few items mentioned earlier, which with adjustments could enhance the learning, Yale’s site offers quality content and learning. As an adult learner, which likely are most of those who access this site, it is important to take upon one’s own shoulders, greater responsibility for one’s own educational learning opportunities (Simonson et al., 2009). As an adult learner myself, I am quite pleased to have had the opportunity to be introduced to this resource.

References

Piskurich, G. & Chauser, J. Planning and Designing Online Courses. Lecture presented for Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5364557&Survey=1&47=7270808&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Technology Tools for Asynchronous Training

In a scenario where a biodiesel manufacturing plant needs to improve upon its poor safety record, there is a challenge to provide safety training to its employees, during all shifts, in an asynchronous manner. Additionally, the supervisors need to ensure employee participation and effective demonstration of the training lessons. I believe utilizing a combination of media sharing sites and podcasts can effectively address these training needs.

Media sharing sites allow a variety of content, such as text, pictures, audio, and video to be shared by a much larger audience, as described in multimedia program “The Technology of Distance Education”. These items can provide a level of interactivity for the purpose of employees indicating, in a question and answer environment, their understanding of the information being presented. Podcasts, in offering audio, graphics, and video, provide greater advantages in learning by addressing both visual and verbal modes of learning (The Technology of Distance Education). Podcasts also provide a greater level of accessibility and convenience as they can be downloaded for playback by a variety of equipment such as iPods, MP3 players, and computers (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek, 2009).

In utilizing this combination of technology tools for these training needs, offers a more abstract form of learning to occur, which is a more efficient use of resources available, in addition to learning occurring in an environment with fewer distractions (Simonson et al., 2009). In developing the necessary training modules in such a way as to incorporate interactivity throughout, a supervisor can be assured of the employee’s participation in the training. To proceed from one stage in the training to the next, the employee will need to correctly identify proper safety procedures, as presented in the module. Should this not occur, the employee will be directed to begin the training module once more.

In identifying specific examples of these technology tools in action, I will first direct readers of this blog to the online safety training site of Vivid Learning Systems at:  http://www.learnatvivid.com/

A specific example of what they can provide is available at:  http://www.youtube.com/user/VividLearningSystems. This multimedia training program displays the level of interactivity for an employee as they demonstrate the proper safety procedures, after having completed a training module presenting and explaining proper safety procedures. Links for two additional multimedia examples are available on the right side of the window.

Another example is MSDS Online at:  http://blog.msdsonline.com/

A specific example from this site, of Podcasts can be found at:  http://blog.msdsonline.com/safety-on-demand-podcast/. This site offers Podcasts covering various safety standards and compliance related topics through interviews with professionals in the field of safety.

In summary, conveying the necessary information to teach employees proper safety guidelines and procedures can be effectively achieved through utilizing a combination of media sharing sites and Podcasts. Improving upon employee’s knowledge base as well as ability to demonstrate proper safety procedures can be achieved in an efficient and economical manner. In fact, video of an employee performing how to safely operate machinery in a real life circumstance can be incorporated into the overall training scenario. Supervisors could then use this video for further communication, feedback, and training purposes.

References

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

The Technology of Distance Education. Lecture presented for Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5364557&Survey=1&47=7270808&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Distance Learning – Defined

When considering my personal observations of distance learning prior to the start of this course, I must acknowledge the foremost influence has been the professional environment in which I have worked for many years. This environment has been at post-secondary academic institutions. Although intercollegiate coaching has been my primary job responsibility, I have seen significant changes in distance learning (DL) education over the past 15 years.

At the early part of this 15 year time period, DL entailed students listening to a series of audio cassettes rather than attending a classroom and hearing an instructor lecture on a subject. Student to student interaction was not a component of this environment. As time passed, the provision of content via video tape, the Internet, and video conferencing occurred. These technology tools expanded the definition of what I knew DL to be, at the time. Distance learning can be defined as formal education where the teacher, learner, and resources are separated by geography and/or time (Simonson). This accurately describes my definition of DL during this period of time. However, the degrees and combinations of separation between geography and/or time significantly changed during these 15 years, as did the interactions and communications between instructor/student and student/student. Additionally, with video conferencing courses established between the community college at which I work, and a four-year university located three hours away, both synchronous and asynchronous learning became part of my definition of DL.

Upon beginning this current course, my definition of DL has expanded. What was a concept of narrowly applying DL to an academic environment, specifically post-secondary, has now expanded to all areas or circumstances where learning is a component. I believe utilizing a DL solution for a learning problem, regardless of environment, is a viable consideration, while not always the best or chosen solution. Previously, my definition included the learner in a DL environment to be an adult, although I was not specifically conscious of this until the start of this course. However, with distance education and learning being one of the fastest growing areas at K-12 institutions (Huett et al., 2008), I now must included learners of all ages in my definition.

The resources from this past week encouraged and allowed me to create a more specific definition of DL. In recognizing four elements of DL to include: the learning to be institutionally based; a separation of teacher and learner; interactive communication at a distance; and the sharing of data, voice, and video, which connects learners, resources and instructors, it can be concluded, with the exclusion of any one of these four elements, the circumstance or environment is not distance learning, rather something else (Simonson et al., 2009). These elements can allow for a more objective distinction to be made between distance learning and other forms of education and/or training. With e-learning becoming a more cost effective means of delivering training within corporate or business organizations, regardless of the extent to which the implementation is ultimately effective (Moller, et al., 2009), being able to identify the training as true DL methodology or something else, should better enable an accurate description of the training to occur. As such, based upon the specific type of training or educational delivery method being utilized, sound modifications and adaptations can be made.

Given the combination of the nature of technology growing in its capabilities and affordability, and the demand for distance learning opportunities increasing, I see no other outcome than DL continuing to grow. With DL having been promoted enough to have reached a critical mass, it now needs to be supported, not just promoted (Simonson). Jobs, family responsibilities, social commitments, the need for additional training at advanced levels, and offering opportunities to more, including those who may be disadvantaged, are some of the reasons DL will continue to grow (Simonson et al., 2009). Furthermore, I believe, as we increase our understanding of the capabilities of DL, and knowing how to design an effective DL model, the quality in the delivery and outcomes will continue to grow, for the better. With this, we should all, as individuals and a society, reap benefits and rewards. Education brings about knowledge, which brings about growth, regardless of whether or not a learner might be physically sitting among classmates and an instructor.

References

Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Coleman, C. (2008). The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(5), 63-67.

Moller, L., Forshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008). The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(3), 70-75.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Simonson, M. Distance Education: The Next Generation. Lecture presented for Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5364557&Survey=1&47=7270808&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Below is a mindmap depicting my new definition and future vision of distance learning.
(Click on image to enlarge.)

Distance Learning - The Beginning

Welcome!
This blog is a continuation of work for a degree program. Currently, the course in which I am enrolled covers various aspects of distance learning. For the next eight weeks, we will read, review, and learn of what distance learning is all about, and where the learning environment might be heading. I look forward to reading any comments and insights offered by those who visit.

Fitting The Pieces Together

After having examined other learning theories over the past few weeks, my view on how I learn has shifted. I have a broader understanding of what I do as a learner, how I approach my own learning, how I prefer my learning environment to be, and most certainly have a greater understanding of various learning theories. Six weeks ago, I indicated behaviorism and cognitivism to be most closely related to how I learn. While I still do believe those theories apply to learning in my earlier days, I believe cognitivism, definitely connectivism and aspects of adult learning theory most closely describe how I best learn today.

In regards to cognitivism, as outlined by Ertmer and Newby in “Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism”, aspects of cognitivism that align with my learning tendencies and preferences include:  changes between states of knowledge rather than changes in the probability of a particular response; the learner being an active participant in their own learning; understanding how to apply knowledge in a different context; and being predisposed to learning. I believe all of these aspects are involved in my current endeavors in this MSIDT program, in particular applying concepts to different set of circumstances. With the wide range of examples an circumstances offered for various concepts and theories, in addition to the wide range of backgrounds and experience brought in from other classmates, I believe I have been able to apply various concepts towards different sets of circumstances. This also has enabled me to have a greater grasp on the concept or theory involved.

In the online article “Adult Learning”, Conlan, Grabowski, and Smith write about andragogy and some primary aspects of adult learning theory that are familiar to me as a learner. The first deals with learning being problem-centered and the learner wanting to know immediate applications of the knowledge. In most everything covered in this program thus far, I always want to know the relevance of and specific applications for what is being learned. I also am primarily motivated by internal as opposed to external factors. I seek to be challenged and to better coordinate future learning environments for myself as an instructor and most certainly for the students with whom I will work. In this same article, the authors point out experiential learning. I believe this concept is definitely part of who I am as a learner. My learning necessitates a combination of “show me” and most importantly “involve me”. I not only want, but need to be a part, in a hands-on manner, of the learning in which I am involved.

The greatest impact on my own awareness of learning incorporates much of connectivism. Having not previously considered the extent and value of a learning network, in the past three weeks I’ve become aware of not only how important a learning network is, of greater significance is my preference for this type of connectivism learning environment. Siemens, in the video “Connectivism” describes connectivism as integrating social networks, information, and technology. For a long time, I have been drawn towards technological tools and environments, without a clear understanding of their impact on my learning and others. When combined with social and information components of one’s learning network, it seems as though there would be endless possibilities. Davis, Edmunds, and Kelly-Bateman, in their article “Connectivism”, stress the importance of networks and developing learning communities in order that ideas be shared with others. Siemens, in his blog “Connectivism” points out the value of blending the traditional knowledge spaces with new, emerging knowledge spaces. He continues by identifying people, or learners wanting to participate, and if allowed their space to do so, will create and innovate through their expression of their own ideas and concepts.

My final thoughts for this post are all about technology. As mentioned previously, I felt I had a predisposition towards technology. This is actually one of the reasons I ultimately chose this program and Walden University to further my academic goals. Upon completion of this past week’s content and readings in Johnson, Levine, and Smith’s “The Horizon Report”, for this course, I have determined technology will be a huge factor in my continued learning. With the emerging technologies of mobiles, cloud computing, geo-everything, personal web, semantic-aware applications, and smart objects, I will certainly be needing to learn much more about these various technological tools and more importantly, how to specifically incorporate them in my own learning and future instructional design efforts. Perhaps this is the adult learner in me! I do foresee technological tools being invaluable in my continued search for, creation of, and the sharing with others of information, and in establishing greater links between the various aspects of my learning network.


References

Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith, K. (2003). Adult learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Adult_Learning.

Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–71.

Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R. (2009). The Horizon Report (2009 ed.). Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2009/.

Siemens, G. Connectivism. [Video Production]. Laureate Education, Inc.

Siemens, G. (2010, August 19). Connectivism. [Blog]. Retrieved from http://www.connectivism.ca/.

Reflecting on a Mind Map

In considering the mind map I created and posted on this blog October 6, I first chose the three broad areas of people, technology, and information. These three areas are most certainly not mutually exclusive. Rather, they most certainly overlap one another and have similar aspects and impacts on my learning. Initially, I thought I might have a difficult time identifying what I needed, as being enough components for this map. As I progressed, I thought of things, people, and circumstances affecting my learning that I never realized had the impact they have, or could have, if I were to  place more focus and/or resources on these areas. I have never previously really considered the concept of network connections as they might relate to and affect my overall learning.  Categorizing the resources that have, can, and will impact the extent to which I learn, not only gives  me a clearer picture of the reasons I might more effectively learn, it better enables me to more effectively focus on these resources.

In posting my mind map to this blog last week, the first sentence in the post include “a work in progress”. The reason for this is that I felt there was much more to be included in the map. However, I was not yet certain of what these things, items, or areas might be. A very good case in point, after having viewed several of my classmates’ blogs and mind maps, is that I neglected to specifically include the experiences, people, and resources of Walden University! How could that not be an aspect of my mind map? The obvious evidently escaped me! This led me to wonder what other obvious items needed to be included.

This personal learning network definitely supports the viewpoints of connectivism. In the video “Connectivism” (Siemens), the integration of technology, social networks, and information is how connectivism is identified. Each of these items is what my map encompasses. Although, my current social network components are primarily real-time based, as identified on the left portion of the map, I do anticipate an expansion of this network into digital social network areas, as identified on the lower right portion of the map. In thinking about the details of the map, there are continued links with Siemens’ video in the following ways:  knowledge is distributed across these components; there clearly exists a broader learning environment than just me as a learner; information is definitely abundant and my “offloading” is primarily directed towards technology; and it most certainly is rich in technology.

My learning definitely does not consist solely of a book, lamp, and chair! Access to the world, thank you Internet, is an extremely important factor. The use of the technology area on my map, enables me to obtain items from the information area on my map, which becomes a part of my communications with people on the left side of my map. This capability is the primary reason the way I now learn has changed. The hardware and software available to me, and that I am able to stay current with these tools, allow for greater efficiency and effectiveness in learning, in addition to greater breadth and depth of learning. The one specific digital tool making the most significant difference for me is my laptop. Learning goes where I go! It does not remain in a book, in a classroom, or with a person. I have constant access to people and information. When questions arise, my first recourse is to go online and research answers to the question. I would like to point out, when considering Prensky’s two definitions of generational learners, in “Timeline and the History of Learning”, while I technically fall into the “digital immigrant” category (either using the 1970 or 1965 cut-off year) I personally would like to place myself in the “digital native” category in that I believe I hold a strong aptitude regarding technology, and have always felt my technological skill set was quite proficient. (It really isn’t a denial of my age!)

This map also supports connectivism viewpoints as identified in the online article, “Connectivism” (Davis, Edmunds, and Kelly-Bateman. 2008). In this article, the authors point out the imperative nature of having the ability to identify what is and is not important information. In my earlier example of going online to search for answers to a question, I must be able to efficiently sift through the results of my search, and identify beneficial information. These authors also identify learning to occur when prior knowledge, perception, reality, comprehension, and flexibility come together. My mind map, in its present form, might visually imply the components do not interrelate. Perhaps it would be more accurate to detach each component, place them in a mind map melting pot, stir them up, and pour them out on a page … with continued animation, to convey the fluidity with which the components interact. In doing so, this could more clearly demonstrate my mind map including pieces of each of the three components of connectivism as Davis, Edmunds, and Kelly-Bateman (2008) outline. These components being, chaos theory, the importance of networking, and the relationship between complexity and self-organization.

Finally, I would like to express my definite agreement with two points in this week’s blog reading, “Connectivism” (Siemens, 2010).

Point one:  “There is value of blending traditional with emergent knowledge spaces”.
Point two:  “Learners will create and innovate if they can express ideas and concepts in their own spaces and through their own expertise”.

Taking into consideration the learners, content, and specific set of learning goals, the environment in which to allow these two points to occur needs only be designed! Perhaps easier said than done, at least for me now. However, this will be revisited in the future!


References:

Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism.

Siemens, G. Connectivism. [Video Production]. Laureate Education, Inc.

Siemens, G. (2010, August 19). Connectivism. [Blog]. Retrieved from http://www.connectivism.ca/

Timeline of the History of Learning. [Flash Media Program]. Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/Walden/EDUC/6115/01/mm/tec_timeline.html

Connectivism

 Below is my current mind map, a definite work in progress! Some items are “older” than others! Some are “newer” to my learning network. Others will be part of my “future” learning network as I progress. Additional details regarding the items on the map will soon be provided. As always, I look forward to learning more!

(If you click on the jpg, it should enlarge to a readable size.)