Some thoughts of my readings in Week 4

Here are some aspects of the readings recommended in Week 4 of this course.

From my readings of this week it has become clear that the changing nature of both the student body and available technologies have required academics to change their approaches to teaching to gain improved learning outcomes.  These technologies enable instructors, students and others to participate in teaching and learning at a time and place convenient to them. Technology in learning and teaching does bring with it a change to the role of the instructor and the nature of teaching.  The transition to online teaching and learning from a traditional face-to-face approach challenges the expectations and roles of both instructors and learners.  Importantly, today’s OL does not only relate to replacing or enhancing “old media” with “new media”, it also relates to the role of institutions itself.   Institutions must have the content and methods that are synchronized for effective OL.  This includes setting up of new departments and policies to fit OL with traditional ways of teaching and learning.  Furthermore, the teachers themselves must be aware of the different designs and messaging techniques that are special to these technologies.  Teachers must be equipped to deal with the great demand by learners for DE.

To teach an OL course effectively, it starts with the course material.  There are many phases to developing course material and it is a process that requires many role players.  It will never do just to replicate existing course design and pedagogical practices from a traditional face-to-face teaching and learning and implement those very practices in an OL environment.   So an effective OL programme starts with the instructional design of the online course.  When moving to an online learning course from a f-2-f module, then one has to redesign learning towards a constructivist approach. This often results in a change in: roles and responsibilities; use of technology; relationships; and online presence.  In the design of new learning methodologies to be effectively taught OL, interaction is a very important aspect of the role of the instructor in distance education, and one that changes in the online environment. Learning involves two types of interaction: interaction with content and interaction with other people.  In developing an online course, participation and interaction must be structured into the course material.  At the end of the day, online learning requires that the academic changes their beliefs and pedagogical practice. 

 Thank you

Tameshnie

 

References

Moore & Kearsley, (2012). Chapter 5, "Course Design and Development," pp. 97-122

Pullen, J.M., & Snow, C. (2007). Integrating synchronous and asynchronous internet

distributed education for maximum effectiveness. Educ Inf Technol, (12), 137–148

doi 10.1007/s10639-007-9035-7

Redmond, P (2011).  From face-to-face teaching to online teaching: Pedagogical transitions. Ascilite Hobart: Full Paper.  Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/downloads/papers/Redmond-full.pdf

Reflections on Assignment 01 - Technology to address DE concern

During my research for this assignment, I confirmed what I have learned about the definition of DE.  DE is a multidimensional concept and includes the concept of technologies. It bridges more than the geographical gap between the educational institute and the student. Further, the term “distance education” incorporates the concepts of “distance learning” and “distance teaching”.   It is a pedagogy different than that of the classroom and it has a long history. DE’s history includes a distinctive philosophy of open access to learning and it has a distinctive organisational form.

The basic idea of DE is simple enough: Teachers and students are in different places for all or most of the time that they teach and learn.  They are therefore dependent on some form of communications technology. Holmberg (2005) talks about mediated teaching and learning. Different technologies, different teaching techniques and different types of student’s means that different ways must be established to manage and deliver these programmes. There is then a duty on teachers to make themselves aware of the different design and messaging techniques that are special to DE and there is a reciprocal duty on learners to enable themselves to effectively study online. DE is based on learner centeredness and the teacher responds to and supports learners; however the student is responsible for their own learning.

One of the main differences in today’s DE, as opposed to the second generation correspondence education, (apart from the upgrade of technologies), is that both delivery and responses are in real time and it is a more cost effective method of study meant to reach a larger target audience than its predecessors.  However, learners of today face an even greater hurdle, that of being in an isolated environment thereby making learning a much lonelier place. 

Through my experience thus far, I have to agree that through technology, the current distance learning environment allows for both synchronous and asynchronous discussions thereby creating an enabling environment where there is the potential for not only promoting interaction, but delivering high quality content subject to the economies of scale.  Furthermore, through using the different technologies that this course has to offer I can see that through collaborative learning communities (like blogs and social networking sites) a sense of community is established to sustain the educational experience over time. Also, an asynchronous online learning environment provides flexibility and more time for reflection and thereby ensuring that effective learning takes place.  Thus far in this OMDE 603 course, I have experienced effective learning through the usage of some of these technologies.  Very effective!

References

Holmberg, B. (2005). Concepts and terminology - Student bodies. The evolution, principles, and practice of distance education. Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (pp. 9-11).

Koçak-Usluel, Y., & Mazman, S. G. (2009). Adoption of Web 2.0 tools in distance education. International Journal of Human Sciences, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.insanbilimleri.com/en

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (Chapter 1, pp. 1-22). USA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning. [eReserves].