The Impact of Open Source

I began my search for an Open Courseware (OCW) class this week unsure of what to expect in terms of a complete online free course.  I immediately began to run into OCW programs that seemed to be repositories of course materials, but struggled to find a complete course I thought I could actually take as a learner.  I felt if I could look at the course from the learner lens, than I would do a better job in my analysis of the course design.  I finally landed on MIT’s OCW Scholar courses and honed in on Fundamentals of Biology (Lander, E., Weinberg, R., Jacks, T., Sive, H., Walker, G., Chisholm, S., & Mischke, M., 2011).  My first impression of the course was that is was thorough and complete in terms of its course content.  But I found myself struggling with who the course was designed for and realized that before I could truly critique the design, I needed to answer this question. 

Anderson (2008) explains that “all teaching & learning systems should be built from two vantage points: the needs of the intended students and the intended learning outcomes of the course or program – i.e. the knowledge, skills, and attributes that students will gain.  An ideal online learning system will be based on a plan that flows from a full understanding of these two fundamentals” (p. 123).   Keeping this in mind, I went in search of who the intended students were for these OCW Scholar courses and then felt I could reflect back on whether this was an ideal online learning system. 

I wrestled with trying to determine who would take this biology course or any of the OCW Scholar courses when no credit is conferred, and no certificate is awarded for the effort and completion.  Simply taking the course for knowledge gain seems like a refreshing idea, and as a motivated, insatiable learner, I personally could see benefit.  However, I wasn’t sure who the larger learner audience was.  After researching this aspect, I quickly realized that the intended users for these courses are diverse, global learners of all ages.  The course materials serve “as ingredients of learning that can then be combined with teacher-student interaction somewhere else or simply explored by, say, professors in Chile or precocious high school students in Bangladesh” (Goldberg, 2001).  Furthermore, statistics collected from the past ten years of OCW use at MIT, reveal a vast learning audience.

“Currently, more than 93% of undergraduates and 82% of graduate students say they use the site as a supplement to their course material or to study beyond their formal coursework. Eighty-four percent of faculty members use the site for advising, course materials creation, and personal learning. More than half of MIT alumni report using the site as well, keeping up with developments in their field, revisiting the materials of favorite professors, and exploring new topics” (Miyagawa, 2010).

Further research revealed that the original OCW course design was intended not for outside students, but rather as a resource for educator use in their own classrooms (MIT OpenCourseWare, 2014).  Global users beta tested these initial OCW courses and the feedback gathered by the designers allowed for a reshaping of the courses, a key feature in planning a distance learning program (Laureate Educaiton, Inc., n.d.).  The outcome was OCW Scholar, a set of more robust courses intentionally designed to serve independent learners who have limited access to extra resources (MIT OpenCourseWare, 2014). 

In reflecting on whether the course appears to be pre-planned and designed for a distance learning environment, I would say absolutely.  I believe the designers use Knowles andragogical theory, which is understood as the theory of adult learning as a basis for this course design (Conlan, Grabowski, & Smith, 2003).  One assumption of adults as learners is that they are more self-directed and independent, and thus better able to handle a self-paced study course (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012).  The course content is presented in a way that the learner can interact with and control in a way that fits their skill level, learning style and need.  Additionally, adults are internally motivated, rather than extrinsically, and thus approach the learning process in an individualistic manner (Conlan, et. al., 2003).  In the OCW Scholar Biology course, there is no extrinsic motivation provided for the learning process.  There is no instructor feedback on the work and no grade provided to the learner.  Rather the motivation must come internally from the learner as they reflect on how they can personally benefit from the knowledge gain through completing the course. 

In addition to planning the Fundamentals of Biology for a particular learner, the course developers followed many recommendations for online instruction design.  For example, Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek discuss the importance of avoiding dumping face-to-face course content into the web environment (2012, p. 134).  The course designers at MIT, specifically highlight that the course materials include custom-created content for the online environment in addition to enhanced materials from the face-to-face classroom (MIT OpenCourseWare, 2014).  Additionally, Simonson, et. al. (2012), discuss the importance of course organization online and a detailed syllabus.  I immediately had a clear picture of the entire course from the home page.  There was a detailed course overview and syllabus with clearly defined learning objectives for each section and overall course.  Each topic also contains information, including what will be learned in the section how it ties to the learning objectives for the unit and course.  Supplemental course readings and videos are embedded into each unit to help the learner gain knowledge outside the course text, another important feature discussed by Simonson, et. al. (2012). 

A final component of my analysis of the Fundamentals of Biology OCW Scholar course was the examination of the design of course activities to maximize learning for students.  Swan (2003) highlights interactions in an online environment that are necessary for effective learning.  Specifically there should be clarity and consistency the course design with opportunities for active learning and assessment (Swan, 2003).  Each topic unit in The Fundamentals of Biology course include an overview, a session activity, a check yourself section, practice problems, and outside extra resource links.  The session activities are infused with multimedia, such as videos from instructors, simulations or tutorials.  Additionally, Swan (2003) discusses the importance of frequent learner feedback.  At first I thought the lack of student-instructor interaction in this OCW setting would inhibit this process.  However, after exploring the course more thoroughly, I found ample opportunities for learner feedback and assessment of learning.  Each learning activity is followed by a check for understanding that provides immediate feedback.  Additionally, all practice problems have a separate solutions attached.  Each unit exam includes a test that is clearly linked to the objectives and also includes solutions.  In this sense, the learner can self-monitor their achievement of each of the objectives as they work through the course and spend more time on areas of deficiency.  A last built in component of the OCW Scholar courses is a course study group that allows for peer interaction and support.  This allows for some important social contact for the learner and additional feedback on the learning process that helps fill the gap for no instructor presence.

Overall, I was quite impressed with this OCW Scholar course.  I was surprised at what I learned through my exploration both on the MIT site as well as outside, in terms of the use and success of these programs for global independent learners.  I look forward to having the time in the future to accessing and utilizing such as course for my own personal learning. 

References:

Anderson, T. (2008). Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2^nd ed.) Athabasca University, Canada: AU press.

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

Goldberg, C. (2001, April 4).  Auditing classes at M.I.T., on the web and free.  The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/04/us/auditing-classes-at-mit-on-the-web-and-free.html

Lander, E., Weinberg, R., Jacks, T., Sive, H., Walker, G., Chisholm, S., & Mischke, M. (2011). 7.01SC Fundamentals of Biology.  MIT OpenCourseWare: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA. Retreived from http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biology/7-01sc-fundamentals-of-biology-fall-2011

Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). Developing online courses [Video file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

MIT OpenCourseWare. (2014).  FAQ: OCW scholar.  Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-ocw-scholar/

MIT OpenCourseWare. (2014).  OCW scholar.  Retrieved from http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/ocw-scholar/

Miyagawa, S. (2010).  MIT OpenCourseWare: A decade of global benefit.  MIT Faculty Newsletter, 23(1). Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/231/miyagawa.html

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: what the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds) Elements of Quality Online Education, Practice and Direction. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education, 13-45.

Selecting Distance Learning Technologies: Interactive Tours

This week, in evaluating a real-world example of a distance learning challenge, I selected example two to research and provide appropriate technology solutions.  Example two involves a high school history class, in which the teacher is looking to bring exhibits from museums from across the country into her classroom for her students to tour, interact with, and critically analyze.  There are two main issues to consider in this example, one is the challenge of the “tour,” the other is the challenge of having the students collaborate as a group to critique a piece of art from one of the exhibits on the tour. 

Distance learning technologies have evolved over the past decade to make field trips possible across the globe without leaving the walls of the classroom.  These virtual field trips (VTFs) can be delivered in either an asynchronous or synchronous setting.  “Interactive VFTs are synchronous, real-time experiences in which students in one location learn from informal educators in another location, such as a museum, historic castle, or organization such as NASA” (Zanetis, 2010, p. 21).  Videoconferencing requires a basic setup of a camera and microphone on the sending and receiving end, usually transmitted via the Internet using a coding and decoding device called a codec (University of Iowa, 2014).

  

Common technologies that provide Internet based videoconferencing solutions for schools include Tandberg, Polycom, and Lifesize.  Many school districts around the country have installed this type of videoconferencing equipment (Zanetis, 2010).  Additionally, this equipment is often housed on “special distance learning carts…that can be wheeled into any classroom” (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012, p. 110).  A backup option for this type of interactive tour if this large-scale videoconferencing equipment is not available is to use free software, such as Skype or FaceTime, on portable devices, such as an iPad.  Another exciting new option that is building a significant provider base is called FieldTripZoom.  FieldTripZoom (2014) provides a cloud-based service that only requires classrooms to have a PC or Mac to connect to museum, zoos and parks.  A simple search of museums offering VTFs via some sort of videoconferencing reveals pages of results.  The solution for this teacher is to engage with a museum educator who can interact from New York with the west coast students via a real-time videoconferencing event.  The museum experts are often adept at showcasing their exhibits to students and tying these presentations into curricular standards (Zanetis, 2010). 

A successful field trip does not necessarily equate to successful learning.  The pre and post activities in the classroom are often more important to enable the students to make connections to the content and truly make the lesson a learning experience.  To engage her students beyond the VFT, this educator desires to have her student participate in a group critique of artwork that she selects from the viewed exhibits.  According to Laureate Education, Inc. (n.d.) media sharing sites lend well to this type of activity, in which students can form a collaborative group to provide feedback on content.  An excellent example of a media-sharing site is VoiceThread.   

VoiceThread is a collaborative cloud-based tool that allows users to add commentary in multiple media formats to an artifact, such as a photo of an art piece.  Participants in the sharing process can add their input via voice or text, all of which are saved together with the original artifact in a Flash animation (Educause Learning Initiative, 2009).  The VoiceThread allows for discussion and critique of an art piece and the ability of the students to share their critique back with the museum educators for further feedback.  VoiceThreads can be shared with different levels of public viewing and can be easily incorporated into most CMS that the school or classroom may use (VoiceThread, 2014).  Peers and/or the museum curators could then evaluate the VoiceThreads to create a deeper understanding of the art pieces and the process of critique.  “By far the greatest potential of VoiceThread lies in the creative opportunity it provides for students to tell their own stories and to contribute to or directly critique the narratives of their peers” (Educause Learning Initiative, 2009, p. 2). 

The most exciting part of generating solutions to challenges in selecting distance learning technologies is researching and finding all the amazing examples of the actual use of these technologies.  I feel that as videoconferencing technologies continue to be refined, the opportunities for engaging interactive VFTs will grow exponentially.  There are a variety of examples of videoconferencing being used by museums across the world.  Two examples of museums that seem to have robust and award winning programs include The National WWII Museum in New Orleans and the Smithsonian American Art Museum and the Renwick Gallery.  I however would like to share a program that I have personal experience with as a science and health educator.  The Center of Science and Industry (COSI) out of Ohio State University offers a variety of amazing science interactive videoconferences, my favorite of which is the Virtual Autopsy.  For several years I have been able to have my students participate in a multi-point interactive videoconference, connecting up to 6 schools at a time, with a live pathologist in Ohio to observe an actual autopsy (COSI, 2013).  Teachers are provided with pre and post supporting curriculum, which is tied to national science standards.  Students must work through the patient case and collect data to solve for the cause of death.  The program has been an invaluable addition to my Anatomy and Physiology classes in the past and currently my Advanced Health Career Pathways class in which we explore forensic medicine. 

In addition to a wealth of examples of videoconferencing, I found wonderful examples of VoiceThread as a media-sharing site for distance learning.  I came across a digital library of successful VoiceThreads in k-12 and higher education across a variety of content areas.   Two in particular caught my eye as being relevant to the history example from this case study.  One was a narrative completed by fifth grade students studying immigration and Ellis Island (De Santis, n.d.).  The students contributed their thoughts and impressions of photos of immigrants.  Hearing the student’s voices and interpretations of the feelings of the immigrants in the photos truly captured the essence of what the teacher was striving for in this activity.  A second example was a VoiceThread at the higher education level for an art history class.  The instructor, Pacansky-Brock (n.d.), summed it up perfectly in her description:

Instructionally, the VoiceThread required students to discuss and reflect on specific images and ideas that they learned about in the current learning unit that was tied to this VoiceThread.  I use a VoiceThread at the end of each online learning unit as a way to recap and discuss the major concepts and ensure students meet the learning objectives for the learning unit.  My students' comments are insightful, engaging and demonstrate evidence of discussing ideas in a group setting.

It appears that no matter what the content, VoiceThread is an excellent example of a media sharing site that is an technological innovation with the ability to influence the future of distance education (Laureate Education, Inc., n.d.).

References

Center of Science and Industry.  (2013).  Interactive videoconferencing: In depth: Autopsy.  Retrieved from http://www.cosi.org/educators/educator-ivc

De Santis, B. (n.d.).  5th Grade - Ellis is. narratives from Barbara De Santis.  Retrieved from http://voicethread.com/about/library/5th_Grade__Ellis_Is_Narratives_from_Barbara_De_Santis/

Educause Learning Initiative.  (2009).  7 Things you should know about VoiceThread.  Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7050.pdf

FieldTripZoom.  (2014).  Our mission.  Retrieved from http://www.fieldtripzoom.com/Home_Page.html

Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). The technology of distance education [Multimedia program]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

Pacansky-Brock, M. (n.d.).  Higher ed online learning from Michelle Pacansky-Brock 2.  Retrieved from http://voicethread.com/about/library/Higher_Ed_Online_Learning_from_Michelle_PacanskyBrock_2/

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Smithsonian Institution.  (n.d.).  Education: Classroom videoconferences.  Retrieved from http://americanart.si.edu/education/video/

The National WWII Museum.  (n.d.).  Virtual field trips.  Retrieved from http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-teachers/distance-learning/virtual-field-trips.html

University of Iowa. (2014).  Video conferencing: FAQ.  Retrieved from http://its.uiowa.edu/support/article/100451

VoiceThread.  (2014).  Communicate, collaborate and connect.  Retrieved from http://voicethread.com/about/features/

VoiceThread.  (2014).  Digital library.  Retrieved from http://voicethread.com/about/library/

Zanetis, J. (2010).  The beginner’s guide to interactive virtual field trips. Learning and Leading  with Technology, 37(6), 20-23.  Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ886387.pdf

Defining Distance Learning

I was surprised to realize that my first experiences with distance learning were quite recent considering my history as both a student and a teacher.  In 2004, I taught in Southwest Region School District in Alaska.  The district is centrally located in Dillingham, while the actual school sites are located in remote villages that are scattered across an area the size of Rhode Island.  Needless to say the district was motivated to meet the needs of more students in a more economical way and began to utilize what I considered to be distance education.  The method of delivery was via Polycom video conferencing from the district office site to several villages at once.  Since that time, I have encountered many different types of distance learning methods and have been able to watch the evolution of the delivery.  Based on my knowledge and experiences, I had an idea of in my head entering this course of what distance education was.  

As I was reading through the variety of definitions of distance education, I felt one particular definition seemed to mirror my own, due to its generality.  Tracey and Richey (2005) summarize a definition of distance education as a learning opportunity that is structured, can be done away from the classroom and can lead to a learning outcome, such as a certification or degree.   I identify with this as my definition because it has a lot of flexibility in determining what does or does not work as distance education.   In reflecting back on the other definitions I have read, I have started to analyze my own definition and question if it needs refining. 

I was surprised to see the specificity of the four components of distance education as outlined by Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek (2012).  When I think about the variety of distance learning options for my students in the K-12 setting, I am not sure all of them fit this rigid definition.  For example, there are students who can participate in an online training certification for small engines at our career and technical school.  The students log in at school to a training program that is used across the nation.  They complete a training tutorial and then work with their on-site teacher to process and reflect on the training and complete skills checks.  They then get back online and complete an online assessment to achieve their certification.  In my mind, this is a great example of distance education, but I am not sure if it fits all four components laid out by Simonson, et.al., (2012), such as the separation of the teacher and student or the interactivity of the telecommunications.  

I would say that as we evolve with distance learning opportunities, the variety of examples of distance education will continue to grow and thus my revised definition remains flexible and open.  I feel that inherent in the definition is that the lesson, course, or program is offered away from a face-to-face setting.  Additionally, I think like the idea that true distance education has a certain level of interactivity.  This interactivity can be one of the four described by Tracey and Richey (2005), in which the learner interacts with the content, other learners, the instructor and/or the technology.  A component that I would like to add to my definition as an expectation rather than a criteria for classification, is that to be a true distance education opportunity, that the design is based on solid pedagogy and instruction design theory.  There needs to be a shift in developing distance education opportunities using the “craft approach” (Moller, Foshay, & Huett, 2008, p. 67). 

I am sure as my own personal learning and experience with distance education evolves, as will my definition.  I think definitions in the field of instructional design will also continue to evolve.  Tracey and Richey (2005) point out that one driving force behind this evolution is the rapid advancements in technology.  They also explain that another powerful factor is the shift in “educational values and philosophies” (Tracey & Richey, 2005, p. 17).  In recent years it the idea of shifting instruction “from the sage on the stage to the guide on the side” (King, 1993) has become more popular, especially as technology has made learning more accessible.  Distance education, especially in an asynchronous environment, seems to allow for more of a student driven and centered learning environment. 

Overall, I hope to see not only the definitions of distance education to continue to evolve, but also the quality of the distance education opportunities.  This quality will draw not only on the latest technological innovations, but also the current research and best practice in instructional design. 

References:

King, A. (1993).  From the sage on the stage to the guide on the side.  College Teaching, 41(1), 30-35.

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 2: Higher education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66-70.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tracey, M., & Richey, R. (2005). The evolution of distance education. Distance Learning, 2(6), 17–21.