ETC655: Instructor’s Notes: Reflections on Lesson 5 Discussions

Due to the Assignment 3 Network Training Sessions, I noticed many of you were not as active and interactive as your normal performances.  I hope you will continue your good work in contributing to our network community. Three more weeks to go.

 

As usual, below are my reflections on each key discussion question to share with you and to advance your critical thinking and learning.

 

<b>L5-KEY-1-ONLE Model-Instructor's Reflection </b>

I hope you have better idea in how to design ONLE with PLE to enhance network learning.

 

I encourage you to apply ONLE model when you plan to design ONLE/PLE.  Ask yourself, what linkage(s) would be effective to support your teaching and design.

Remember, to reach effective network design, we do not need to apply ALL linkages.  We need to be able to choose the linkages that are relevant and effective to our teaching and design goals.

 

I create ONLE model as part of my 2014 book to help us to teach and to design network instructions. Feel free to share this model with other professionals.

 

As an educator, you have the opportunity to prepare and advance online learners to become network learners. The two are different. Network learners in ONLE do not just consume learning content; they create and edit learning content collaboratively with other network learners. Additionally, while creating and editing content collaboratively, network learners "aggregate," "mash up," and "remix" identified network learning content to generate a new set of content with their creative ideas to personalize their learning.

 

In a Constructivist and Connectivist learning context, both teachers and students are learners. By integrating the open network linkage design model, and creating and co-creating ONLE with network learners to assist all network learners to build their PLEs, online instructors have an opportunity to advance themselves to network instructors.  Could this be the concept of "Open Pedagogy?"

 

<b>L5-KEY-2-Environment-System-Instructor's Reflection </b>

I really like many of you challenged yourselves with critical thinking on this topic.  This is not an easy topic at all.  Typically, we addressed it with one aspect.  I saw some of you approached from cost of technology, features of technology, and designs etc.

 

I think there are no correct, nor incorrect answers to understand environment and system.  The key point is whether you are able to examine them from multiple aspects to understand ONLE. I agree for personal uses, learning, and teaching that we have preferences. When we design ONLE for others, we may not have choices.  In addition, the teaching, and learning contexts are different from our own.  As educational technology leaders, we need to have wider understanding on ONLE rather than just our own preferences.

 

Typically, we distinguish environment from system from the cost of technology and features of technology.

 

I would like you to challenge yourselves with these questions:

 

Typically, we argue:

Systems cost more than environment &

LMS/CMS is for systems while open network technology is for environments.

Can argue:

Environments cost as much as or higher than systems?

Is it possible that we integrate LMS/CMS to create environments while integrate open network technology to create systems?

 

<b>L5-KEY-3-RSS: Instructor's Reflection: Apply Different Frame</b>

It is great to see many of your shared your insights with us on RSS.  We see some have experiences with RSS while some don't.  It is very common that we apply our existing frame to examine new technology.  It is likely that new technology may not meet our expectation. This could be we apply our existing frame to evaluate something different.  For example, applying personal computer frame to examine mobile devices.  Some may conclude mobile devices don't function as well as computers, because (long) typing on mobile devices is painful.  Could this be due to we apply computer frame to examine mobile devices?

We are used to look for information while with RSS, information comes to us.  For example, subscribing Nabble discussion's RSS feeds; therefore, the postings come to our PLE RSS feeds rather than we visit the discussion board.

What do you think?

<b>L4-KEY-4-Accelerated-Instructor's Reflection: Design. Not about Content?! </b>

We had active and interesting discussion on online accelerated learning. Many of you applied your "professional" knowledge to analyze it while some used personal experiences to reflect.  It is important for us to approach any discussion topic from both "professional" knowledge and personal experiences.  I like to remind us that it is more than "I like/dislike it" nor "It works or doesn't work for me." 

 

When it comes to "instructional design"

• You design the instructions for instructors, students, not for your own learning.
• You may design it and not teach it. This is very common in higher education.
• You may not be the content expert. You provide instructional design support to teachers and faculties who are the content experts.
• Online accelerated learning is a trend. It doesn't mean it is the best way to teach/learn. Personally, we may or may not like to learn or to teach this way.  However, we need to know how to design it to meet instructors', students', and institutions' needs.
• What learning theory, pedagogy/frameworks, and design models/constructs you may use to design for online accelerated learning?  Instructivist? Constructivist? Or Connectivist pedagogy?
• When there is so much content to cover in online accelerated instructions, would Connectivist pedagogy be more effective since George Siemen's Connectivism focuses on the ability of "connecting" to right people, and meaningful content with effective technologies.

 

While designing online accelerated instructions, educators focus on "content."

 

Content is critical but I think effective pedagogy is even more critical for online accelerated instructions rather than just seeing online accelerated instructions as convenience for completing courses faster.

 

While financial and marketing advantages for institutions are no-doubt involved in the origins of the implementation of the accelerated instructions, pedagogical rationale supporting the online accelerated instructions is ultimately critical to ensure students to have positive learning and educators preparing effective online instructions.

 

While designing online accelerated instructions, do we just press regular semester instructions into accelerated instructions? If we do this, are we just focusing on "content?"

 

What pedagogy is more effective for online accelerated instructions (Instructivist, Constructivist, or Connectivist)?

 

Do online accelerated instructions regular the learners' different skills, such as self-regulated learning skills?

 

We will revisit online accelerated from SRL and pedagogy aspects in Lesson 8 discussion.  After reading your postings, I think it would be even better for us to deepen our understanding on online accelerated learning and SRL skills.