 |
| Img Source |
Module 3: Reflection
Shifting away from comparing online courses and learning management systems, this module focused on online learning tools. Through a collection of course readings such as Ko and Rossen’s (2010) Teaching Online: A Practical Guide to Hsu and Ching’s (2012) Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts, I developed a clearer understanding of the various uses of online tools, and the configuration of those tools, to promote active engagement and creativity in the online learning environment.
I think Ko and Rossen’s (2010) chapter on guidelines to help find “suitable” activities for my course is highly valuable (p. 173). Rather than taking what they consider a “mechanical” approach of setting up a “communal online working space,” they instead focus on general ideas illustrated by actual course examples (Ko and Rossen, 2010, p. 174). Throughout the chapter, the authors explain the conditions that might lead a professor to make certain choices in designing the course, and then offer an example of how that decision played out in an actual course using a real-life example. For example, in the section on supervision and assessment of groups, the authors cite Jonathan Matthew’s Energy and the Environment online course for Pennsylvania State University to illustrate how he was able to “discern individual contributions throughout a group project” with a class size of 500 students (Ko and Rossen, 2010, p. 180).
This example gave me much to think about. How would an instructor approach assessment and feedback in a course of such a size? How could an instructor organize students in a way that would outsource portions of the feedback process to members of the class; and, if this were successful, would the students’ find their peers’ evaluations sufficient? As Ko and Rossen point out, “students often worry about being unfairly appraised by the inexpert eyes of their fellow students,” so it would be important to put this in consideration when considering how much a peer’s assessment will be valued in the gradebook (Ko and Rossen, 2010, p. 206).
An instructor’s approach to online course design will also have to factor in how and when their students plan to access their course. In Hsu and Ching’s (2012) article on microblogging and mobile devices for educative purposes, they discuss amongst many things how mobile technology allows students to “continue their learning processes outside classrooms or traditional learning environments” (Hsu & Ching). This combined with the Ko and Rossen readings helped me recognize that as more students purchase powerful mobile devices, and more students are accessing their online courses using these devices, instructors will need to put into consideration how the course would be experienced on a mobile device as they design their course. When designing a syllabus, for example, it might become necessary to stipulate which activities are not appropriate for mobile devices and which were specifically designed for mobile devices. One example that comes to mind is a flash-based Adobe Captivate tutorial that is inaccessible on an iPhone, which has a default browser that does not render flash files.
However, as Hsu and Ching (2012) demonstrate in their article, mobile Web 2.0 applications, such as Twitter, allow students to “extend [their] learning context from the content in class to their authentic real-life settings.” In their study (2012), students tweeted examples related to each course topic found in real-life (using text and/or images), and then their peers responded to their tweets with feedback (Hsu and Ching). This helped me formulate a whole new set of questions and concerns when designing a rubric and assignment expectations. If I were to borrow this activity for my classroom, how would I accommodate those students that do not have a mobile device capable of using Twitter? How could I modify the assignment to meet the needs of visually or audibly impaired students while still encouraging their group participation?
I think because I am developing my understanding of online course design, it is important for me to consider how the structure of the course will greatly impact my students’ learning experience. Overall, I found two things most valuable in this selection of readings. One, learning how other instructors approached course issues with creative and practical solutions. Two, how the online learning environment is no longer confined to a computer terminal, as mobile technologies have advanced to a point that allows students to take powerful, connected tools with them on the go.
References
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2010). Teaching online: A practical guide. (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Houghton Mifflin Co.
Hsu, Y., & Ching, Y. (2012). Mobile microblogging: Using Twitter and mobile devices in an online
course to promote learning in authentic contexts. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 13(4), 211-227. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1222/2313
No comments:
Post a Comment