Where Do We Go From Here?

While there are benefits to eLearning, such as flexibility for students to participate asynchronously and opportunities to revisit material in a self-paced learning environment, there are still significant issues to overcome.  Without ongoing proper professional development, communities of practice, and attention to sound constructivist pedagogy, eLearning courses can resemble traditional 'stand and deliver' classrooms founded upon the industrial model.  Some institutions like Athabasca University have successfully branded themselves as leaders by catering to the rising demand for eLearning.  How have they achieved this?
Kanuka & Kelland (2008) referenced the mythologies of eLearning effectiveness, in "that it provides more interaction in terms of many-to-many versus one-to-many that can provide opportunities for learner engagement and knowledge sharing" (p. 54).  This may not true, as one participant stated "while this is possible - it doesn't happen when, as is so often the case, students don't read other students' postings (p. 54).  I wonder how much of the mythology around eLearning contributes to its success, particularly when there is money at stake and competition to attract students at various institutions.  What is the currency attached to eLearning and its perceived effectiveness on student outcomes?
Our school is considering purchasing ipads.  In our tech committee meetings, we have discussed the research on mobile devices and attended professional development workshops to learn about current trends and available applications.  We are also very aware of the parental pressure associated with adopting these innovative devices and how some schools have asserted themselves as early adopters.  On one hand, we want to make sound, informed decisions when it comes to technology purchases, but on the other, we have to be sensitive to the market and perceptions attached to adopting technologies early in the development cycle.
I wonder whether institutions considering investing in eLearning programming might experience a similar dilemma.  In a climate plagued by funding issues in education, what are institutions reasonably able to invest in eLearning?  From a business standpoint, how much should an institution invest of its finite resources in eLearning?  How would decision makers know they have invested too little or too much?  Finally, what information can decision makers rely on when "it is difficult to make sense of the research literature on e-learning and, in turn, to use it to make informed decisions" (p. 49).

eLearning Quality Standards

This week's reading on Open eQuality Learning Standards (ODL) was interesting in its attempts to address what Perkins (2011) identified as the "abuses perpetrated by diploma mills" (p. 11).  I wonder how successful these standards have been in addressing these concerns.  I googled 'degrees online' and came up with this website http://www.cvu-uvc.ca/english.html and it lists well-known, reputable institutions such as Athabasca University.  Next I clicked on http://www.speedydegrees.com/ which by its name calls into question its credibility.  The website states:

"Life Experience Degree suits individuals who possess basic to expert level exposure and experience in a specific field but lack educational documents to prove themselves. This makes individuals stay 
back and struggle for jobs and promotions. Through Life Experience Degrees, individuals can now get recognition for their skills and talents from an Accredited University in just 7 days."

So who regulates companies like speedydegrees.com and why are they able to offer degrees for $299?  Is this legal?  Who are these "accredited universities" the website claims to have ties to?  How would the ODL tackle an organization like this?  How do these types of degrees devalue the degrees and diplomas legitimate institutions provide?

Another thing I am unclear of is how these standards become actualized.  I visited http://www.eife-l.org/publications/standards to get a sense of what ODL is about and how their standards are recognized and publicized, but I could not get a clear picture of this.  So for example, if I am considering Athabasca for my eLearning program, how am I assured that they adhere to ODL standards?  On Athabasca's website http://www2.athabascau.ca/aboutau/accreditation.php they do not list Eifel among their memberships.  Speedylearning is a no brainer, but what if an institution appears reputable?

eLearning Build

One of the key quotes from this week's readings is from the Davis, Little and Stewart article.  They stated that "all teaching and learning systems should be built from two vantage points: the needs of the intended students, and the intended learning outcomes of the course of program" (p. 123)  I wonder how many eLearning programs have been built with this fundamental understanding in mind.  I can see how gaining a true understanding of the needs of the intended students could be taxing.  To be successful in an eLearning course, what would teachers and students need access to?  These authors ask us to consider such variables as "background with technology, expectations, financial and other resources, access to the web or other online networks, bandwidth limitations" (p. 123).  What other considerations could there be?
In 2004 Donald Norman wrote a book called Emotional Design where he proposed three levels of design: reflective, behavioural, and visceral.  For the purposes of this blog entry, I would like to focus on the behavioural level. At this level, Norman describes it as "the pleasure of using a good tool effectively" (p. 23).  Consider the feel of a comfortable automobile or contours of a piece of mobile technology.  In determining the needs of the user in an eLearning course, not only is it important to understand prior knowledge students bring to the course, but also the behavioural expectations users carry with them.  The technology must run well in order to cultivate a sense of trust on the part of the teachers and learners.  Davis, Little, and Stewart proposed a "user-friendly portal system so that, with a single login, they can also have access to their courses"(p. 127).
In our Board, we use a system full of multiple logins and it is an endless source of frustration.  The product fails miserably at the behavioural level.  Though as frustrating as this may be, I suspect designers of eLearning courses must weigh the needs of the users with the security needs of the institution.  I see this as an important consideration, one that Davis, Little, and Stewart did not address in the scope of their article.

Examining Pedagogy

In the article, E-Moderating Personas by Averinou and Andersson, the question of what the teacher holds dear in terms of pedagogy arises.  It was interesting to see that irrespective of the delivery method, whether online or in a traditional classroom setting, the pedagogical foundations seemed to surface.  For example, Henrik wished for synchronous online conferences while for Linda they were not.  Why would it be important to mimic a traditional synchronous classroom setting in an online environment?  Is there value in this?  What does this tell us about Henrik?
When I read this article, I was reminded of the SMART Board initiative in our school board.  When SMART Boards were rolled out to all classrooms, the training was focused on the utility of the technology, not the pedagogy behind it.  Consequently, as our Learning Leaders have reported, the boards have become in some cases, a glorified whiteboard.  If teachers were subscribing to a stand-and-deliver lecture approach with a whiteboard before, how could we expect them to do differently in front of a SMART Board with no attention to pedagogy?
The article emphasizes the teachers' "online training experiences, but over and above their constructivist teaching philosophies"(p. 363) as instrumental to their success.  For eLearning to be a successful medium for teaching and learning, we must delve deep into the why before we attend to the how.  We know the technology is there to offer online learning experiences, but without teachers understanding the why, I feel we are destined to repeat our experience with the SMART Board initiative.

Learner Management vs. Facilitating Learning

I have been reflecting on my practice, giving thought to what I had deemed important in the past and where I am now with respect to technology.  When I started teaching elementary five years ago, I came out of the gate eager to embrace inquiry and experiment with new technologies.  I was fortunate to be in a school that valued technology and budgeted accordingly.  Over these few short years, I have engaged with a one-to-one laptop project, Lego Mindstorms robotics, blogging, podcasting, movie making, web design, and D2L.  I have always been keen on exploring new technologies because I believe that technology can support a variety of learning styles and open up multiple entry points for learners.  This week's readings have validated some of what I have done while forcing me to question their value and purpose.

Our Board subscribes to D2L (Desire to Learn) course management system, which houses content securely for its users.  I have used D2L for the past four years and experienced some of its positive aspects and frustrations along the way.  One of the key advantages is it presents a social learning opportunity for its users to reflect and comment on discussion topics both in and outside of the classroom.  While it may lack the "just-in-time, and sometimes playful" (p. 1) aspects of Twitter as Dunlap & Lowenthal (2009) suggested, it mimics this idea and has the benefit of being secure and Board-approved.

What is permitted for student use in our Board, particularly at the elementary level, is somewhat limited.  For example, when I proposed the use of Wallwisher for my students, I had a conversation with my principal about safety.  Could I guarantee that other users outside of my student base would not have access to wall postings they had made?  How could I assure my principal and parent base that these students would not be susceptible to any outside interference or influence?  The answer was found through D2L and posting the link to the Wallwisher boards within this environment.  After time consuming meetings, parent letter send home, and generating and posting individual wall URLs within D2L, we were able to use Wallwisher.  Was it worth it?  I'm not sure.

Now, I give this example because it speaks to a growing concern for student safety and FOIP-related issues.  In our attempts to facilitate learning, we must also recognize the need to manage content.  This is a tricky area to navigate because as an educator I want to open up opportunities for my students to participate in relevant social learning landscapes, but our responsibility to our parents is to keep their students safe.

Presently, I do not see a way around a system where, as Dunlap & Lowenthal reminded us, "the tools reside within the online system" and "the communication between and among students and faculty is scheduled based on when they have a moment to login to the LMS" (p. 2).  D2L is intentionally designed this way and I see no way around it currently.  Social media instruments such as Twitter, Second Life, and Facebook are all off limits, at least until we get to a place where we can convince parents and our Board these tools can ensure student safety.

Self-Paced Learning

The article, State of E-Learning in Canada, contains a quote regarding the benefits of e-Learning that captured my interest: "enabling students to control the timing, location, and pace of their studies" (p. 13).  I am reminded of a Ted Talk by Salman Khan using video to create a self-paced learning environment.  This approach is particularly poignant for my practice as there is significant talk around personalizing learning in our Board.  How then can a classroom allow for this?

Consider the following: inclusive education, mandated curriculum, differentiated instruction, personalized learning, cross-curricular connections, assessment for learning, and inquiry.  All of these terms have implications for practice and all are impacted by issues of funding, time, expertise, and professional development.  But did we not create these?  During my practicum a number of years ago, I remember a partner teacher of mine declaring, "In public education, all are welcome.  We don't pick and choose who we get, we take them all."  Indeed, we do welcome all and embrace diversity, however, with this our practice must shift accordingly.

Now what of personalized learning?  Perhaps we should take a closer look at Khan's work.  Khan started posting short You Tube math videos for his family and steadily received user feedback and requests to continue posting additional content.  This incidental approach to education has since garnished attention from the likes of Bill Gates and Khan has now formalized his self-paced approach by developing the Khan Academy (http://www.khanacademy.org/).  His site contains over 2400 videos on topics ranging from math to history to physics.

I am very impressed by Khan's work and inspired to take this into my classroom.  I'm wondering how to translate the e-Learning opportunity Khan has created to the physical classroom space.  I want my students to be able to create, revisit, and reflect on their learning at their own pace, yet the demands of curriculum and timetabling pose certain challenges.  I have experimented with D2L in past years and been pleased with some of the outcomes in terms of students extending their learning beyond the classroom.  Students have posted websites they've come across on a particular topic on their own time and contributed to discussion strands.  This may have some semblance of what Khan is doing while students are at home, yet when they return to the classroom the next day, curricular demands necessitate a different rhythm.

Further reflection and reading is needed in this area.