I’m collecting ideas and suggestions for a 1 month professional development course I’m designing that will cover social networking strategies for distance learning.

Here are a few details about the course…

• 4 week course taught as an advanced online seminar offered by Illinois Online Network as part of the Making the Virtual Classroom a Reality course series
• 4 modules, 1 week per module
• 5 to 10 hours per week of engagement and interaction time to justify 4 continuing education units that would be granted for it
• all required “textbook” readings should be freely available online
• Moodle will serve as the learning management system for the course, but other free social networking technologies can be incorporated where they add value to the course
• target date for course to launch: March 2010

What would the ideal online social networking course consist of? What texts/readings should be included? What technologies should be discussed? What activities should students engage in?

Leave a comment here with your ideas, suggestions, and resources! I’m also collecting suggestions on Google Wave at the wave titled, “Ideal online social networking course?” that is available by searching with:public tag:ion

As Allen and Seamen (2008) note, online education has continued to experience steady and sustained growth and shows no signs of slowing anytime soon. I’ve personally found through my own experience that in these particularly challenging times for higher education, institutions are increasingly looking to online education as one way to not increase revenue but also expand course offerings. Allen and Seamen’s findings support the common approach among higher education institutions today to strategically implement online learning in overall programmatic development efforts.

Not only are institutions embracing online education today, but students are also flocking to online modes of learning in record numbers. As noted, over one-fifth of all higher education students are now taking at least one online course (Allen & Seamen, 2008). A primary reason why online education may be so popular especially among adult, non-traditional learners is the flexibility that it affords. The learner can continue his or her education while still continuing a career and maintaining other personal commitments.

What other factors do you suspect may be contributing to the steady growth of online education in higher education? Post a comment with your thoughts!

Reference:

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/staying_course

Several weeks back I came across Prezi beta that claims to allow,

…anyone who can sketch an idea on a napkin to create and perform stunning non-linear presentations with relations, zooming into details, and adjusting to the time left without the need to skip slides.

As part of my dissertation research, I’ve drafted an interaction matrix that helps explain the dynamic variety of interactions that are often considered essential in fostering a socially constructed learning environment. What follows is the rationale for this model that can serve to help guide the design and development efforts of meaningful and memorable learning environments.

At the core of the interaction matrix are the essential elements of the learning environment: content, learner, instructor, collective, and network.

Many learning endeavors commonly are focused initially upon the integration of course content. The content includes the complete assortment of instructional materials, learning objects, assigned readings, resources, etc. that serve as the reference and resources that the both the instructor and learners will make use of. The instructor and learner(s) complete the triad of essential elements commonly understood as foundational to the learning encounter. Yet, two emerging catalytic components should also be included as core elements that learners interact with in informal contexts: the Network and the Collective.

Anderson and Dron (2007) note the distinctive characteristics of each of these granularities of social organization. They define the network as, “a more fluid form of social entity in which members join, create and remove themselves from numerous informal learning and social connections.” The network is personalized for each learner, as s/he has complete control over the composition of their network, the individuals comprising the network, and the degree to which the network is utilized.

The “Network” is further classified by Downes (2006) as being:
diverse, autonomous, open, connective, and distributed. Downes also notes that that networks serve as bridges among individuals and agents in contrast to groups which isolate individuals into restricted units. Networks are fluid and generative as members contribute to create a resource that has greater value than any individual or group can solely construct. Examples of networks in education might include email mailing lists, social networks, or subscribers to syndicated blogs.

In comparison to the Network, the Collective is much more expansive and involves the bottom-up interactions of the many. Anderson and Dron refer to the Collective as, “The largest form of social granularity in which members participate for individual benefit, but their activities are harvested to generate the ‘wisdom of the crowds’.” Anderson and Dron further note that the Collective is, “a kind of cyber-organism, formed from people linked algorithmically…it grows through the aggregation of individual, Group and Networked activities. This distinctive dynamic is one of aggregation, not networking and the clearest way of distinguishing the two is that collective systems do not require a commitment to the Many.” The Collective might include any type of interactions involving individuals indirectly contributing to the many and can involve such items activities as searching, social bookmarking, ranking, reviewing, and voting.

Formal Interaction

Moore (1989) suggested the existence of three main types of interaction within educational contexts: (1) between the learner and instructor, (2) among learners, (3) between learners and the content they are working to master. A host of subsequent typologies have emerged, each seeking to either extend Moore’s basic tenets of interaction or define additional forms of interaction within the instructional context (see, for example, Anderson & Garrison, 1998; Hannafin, 1989; Hirumi, 2002; Juwah, 2006; Jung, Choi, Lim, & Leem, 2002; Wagner, 1997). The Interaction Matrix draws together the dynamic interactions possible in contemporary online learning environments into a single model that can be utilized in the design, development, and facilitation of online learning initiatives.

In accordance with widespread recommendations from the literature and recommendations from learners (Rhode, 2007), the following formal interactions should be considered when designing online learning:

Instructor-Content Interaction. This involves the wide array of interactions that the instructor has with the content and includes activities such as selecting objectives, developing instructional materials, crafting activities for learners to engage in, etc.

Learner-Learner Interaction. This includes any number of interactions designed to encourage learners to interact with one another throughout the course. These interactions could be either synchronous or asynchronous but the parameters for such activities are generally specified by the instructor or the course requirements.

Content-Content Interaction. Rather than offering just a single set of activities or interactions for all learners, content-content interaction can facilitate custom learning paths through course content and activities, displaying content to certain users for a limited period of time or making additional content available based on the a variety of pre-defined or dyanamic content variables.

Instructor-Learner Interaction. Any number of interactions between learners and the instructor are possible. Such interactions may be either synchronous or asynchronous and can be either instructional, supplementary, or evaluative in nature. No matter the specific format of the interactions, learners have reported finding the interactions with the instructor to be essential to the quality of the online learning experience (Rhode, 2007).

Learner-Content Interaction. As learners actively engage with course content, they have opportunity to evaluate, apply, and synthesize course content. Therefore, the interactions that learners have with content should be carefully designed to facilitate meaningful interactions.

Informal Interaction

In addition to the formal interactions that instructors and designers must consider, numerous informal interactions also are possible and should be considered as contributing to the overall success of the learning encounter and may serve as integral to the quality learning experience preferred by both learners and instructors. These interactions, while some at times exist beyond the control of the designer or instructor, should at least be considered as important components to the complete learning experience.

Learner-Learner Interaction. Learners have opportunity to interaction with each other informally outside of the formal learning environment. These interactions may include, but aren’t limited to: email, phone, meeting in person, sharing or compiling bookmarked resources, social networking, subscribing to each other’s blogs, commenting on each other’s blogs.

Instructor-Content Interaction. In addition to the formal efforts of the instructor to design and develop various course content activities, the instructor may come across additional resources or supplementary course content items that may either add to overall understanding or serve as additional resources. The instructor may engage in a variety of ongoing informal interactions with the content, such as bookmarking new resources, subscribing to and commenting on blogs or news feeds, etc. The instructor may choose to incorporate newly-discovered content and resources immediately to the course in-progress or may utilize them when revising the course for the next group of students.

Content-Content Interaction. Consistent with the characteristics of the Collective described above, a wide assortment of informal interactions among content items can contribute to the learning experience and be leveraged. Such interactions could involve organic interactions such as the formation and updating of dynamic information feeds or agents that are developed and updated by other forms of information or content. As the Collective becomes more clever as technology develops, the format and influence of content-content interactions will only further develop.

Instructor-Learner Interaction. Learners may need to reach out to the instructor informally for further clarification or assistance. Or, the instructor may need to contact students outside the formal course environment to share announcements or updates. A myriad of other informal interactions are possible, all of which may help learners feel more connected to the instructor as well as supported throughout the entire learning experience.

Learner-Content Interaction. Learners have opportunity to interact with content informally, which may serve to help reinforce formal interactions and therefore solidify the efficacy of designed formal learner-content interactions. While each learner’s personal learning environment (PLE) whereby many such interactions take place is unique, it is possible to design opportunities in the learning experience for learners to leverage their PLE to extend formal learning content. such activities might include searching online for related supplementary resources and then bookmarking them to share with the class or subscribing to blogs and other feeds that further extend the knowledgebase.

Learner-Network Interaction. As learners develop their own learning network outside the walls of the formal course environment, they have opportunity to form connections that can support interactions on a number of levels.

Learner-Collective Interaction. Learners can access a myriad of additional informal resources referred to as “the Collective” in which the input of the many can have a significant and dynamic contribution. Learners also can share their perspective with the collective, therefore contributing to the success of

Interaction Matrix

Considering the full range of possible interactions that possible, the Interaction Matrix below depicts the essential elements of a socially constructed learning environment as they are involved in various synergistic interactions. As Sims and Stork (2007) recommend, designers should be cognizant of the unique cultural and situational/social contexts of learners that influence the ability for learners to engage in online learning environments. Emergent designs enable learners to integrate their individuality, experience and culture into the teaching and learning dynamic. Such designs leverage the full suite of interactions possible. Therefore, designers should be aware of each of these potential interactions and incorporate as many such interactions as are possible in an effort to provide learners with the maximum level of control in their learning experience.

This model is a work-in-progress and comments, suggestions, and ideas for further development are certainly welcome. It will be included in chapter five of my dissertation.

References:

Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2007). Groups, networks, and collectives in social software for e-learning, 2007 European Conferences on E-Learning. Copenhagen, Denmark. Slides available at http://www.slideshare.net/terrya/ecel-copenhagen-2007-terry-anderson.

Anderson, T. & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes(pp. 97-112). Madison, WI: Atwood.

Downes, S. (2006). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Retrieved October 16, 2006, from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html.

Hanafin, M. J. (1989). Interaction strategies and emerging instructional technologies: Psychological perspectives. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 18(3), 167-179.

Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of elearning interactions: A grounded approach. International Journal on E-Learning, 1(1), 19-27.

Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153-162.

Juwah, C. (2006). Introduction. In C. Juwah (Ed.), Interactions in online education: Implications for theory and practice (pp. 1-5). New York: Routledge.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.

Rhode, J. F. (2007) Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. Unpublished dissertation.

Sims, R., & Stork, E. (2007). Design for contextual learning: Web-based environments that engage diverse learners. In J. Richardson & A. Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings of AusWeb07. Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University.

Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71, 19-26.

So, I’m about a week into my experiment trying Twitter and I must admit that I’m really enjoying being able to post such quick little updates of what I’m doing.  Especially as I’m in the midst right now of wrapping-up my dissertation and I have a bunch of small milestones that I need to hit soon, being able to quickly post my status has been helpful not only as a small encouragement to keep moving forward, but also allows me to look back and celebrate the process I’ve made thus far.

I’ve found the Twitter widget for Mac OS X to be espeically helpful, as I can very quickly post my status without having to logon to a website anywhere.  This free widget is a definite must-have for anyone on a Mac who is Twittering.

Also convenient is the ability to setup Facebook to show your latest Twitter post as your status.  Post to Twitter and “kill 2 birds with 1 stone.”

I’ve also started poking around for others who are on Twitter to see what they are posting, but haven’t found too many educators or children’s ministers yet.  Do you fall into either of those categories and do you have a Twitter account?  Drop me your username…I’d love to check out your Twitters   You can find me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jrhode

As I continue to become more familiar with Twitter, I’m looking forward to trying to implement this into my teaching.  Anyone else started using Twittter or some other micro-blogging tool in your online teaching or children’s ministry communications?  I’d love to hear your comments.

vs.

While I’ve not yet done a whole lot with the microblogging tool Twitter, I just came across this thorough introduction to how one might use Twitter.

If you want to give Twitter a try, you can sign-up for a free account here. You can find me at Twitter at http://twitter.com/jrhode

I wonder as enamored as it seems young people are these days with texting and social networking tools like this, are us “old folks” missing out by not being actively involved in the whole social presence phenomenon?

While I’m going to give Twitter a try and keep an open mind about it, I must admit that I’m really apprehensive about taking the time to post what I’m doing. Does anyone really care anyway what I’m doing? I know there are people who do, but will they want to subscribe follow me electronically? Maybe they do…and I’m being totally “20th century” about this.

Anyway…I’d love to hear from anyone who is either actively using Twitter, Jaiku, or some other microblogging tool. Or, maybe you’re considering just trying one. What are your thoughts on this?

Another question I’m going to throw out…what’s the big difference between Twitter and Jaiku? I’ve got a Jaiku account as well, but I’m not sure why I would want to use one over the other. Certainly, the fact the Google now owns Jaiku certainly catapults the development capital and potentially the longevity of Jaiku.

Chime in with your thoughts!

My “toolbox” of important concepts, processes, and tools for the design of instruction within a distance education program is by no means complete nor is it neatly organized. As my practical understanding of online instruction continues to grow with my theoretical basis of knowledge, I become evermore cognizant of the complexities of the design process. While this list of important considerations is by no means complete, it serves as a preliminary basis for further research and discussion.

**Online training must be convenient, compatible, and revisable (Welsh & Anderson, 2001). This includes a variety of important technical elements that must be considered by designers. “Chunking” of training content into small manageable chunks for delivery is an important means to this end.

**Articulation of online pedagogy for the given online learning system is critical. In fact, the unique attributes of the online pedagogy need to be capitalized upon during development (Dabbagh, Bannan-Ritland, & Flannery Silc, 2001). Dabbagh et al. note, “In order for WBI to be effective, it must be pedagogically driven, dynamically designed, interaction oriented, and content specific. Focus should be placed on designing a pedagogical approach appropriate for the content, inclusion of organization and interaction strategies that enhance the student’s processing of the information, and integration of the medium’s attributes to support the designated goals and objectives of the course” (p. 352-353).

**All members of the learning community need to have equal access to the necessary technology (Hedberg, Brown, Larkin, & Agostinho, 2001). This goes beyond simply making sure people have Internet access, but to ensure that they have the necessary software and computing skills to successfully navigate the online learning environment. The idea of accessibility for all is an increasingly important consideration for both web designers and online instructional designers alike (Nielsen, 2000). Online content should be designed for the “lowest common user” – in which I am referring to those users with the least level of accessibility or computing skill.

**The open, flexible, and distributed learning environment of the Web should be maximized in the development of training that is accessible for all. The elements of Khan’s Web-Based Learning Framework (Khan, 2001) should be addressed in the development process, which includes the following dimensions: pedagogical, technological, interface design, evaluation, management, resource support, ethical, and institutional.

**Bandwidth is also an important limiting factor to consider, which refers to the volume measure of information flow (Moore & Lockee, 2001). Bandwidth places formidable limits upon what can occur at any given time during the instructional event. Moore & Locke (2001) state, “In web-training environments, the delivery network infrastructure must be considered so that training developers can avoid creating instruction that diverts a learner’s attention due to unnecessary delays” (p. 274). This coincides with the concept of keeping training accessible and for all learners.

**An element of self-assessment should be included in the design (Hedberg et al., 2001). Learners should be encourage to reflect upon their learning experience and share those reflections with others in the learning experience.

**A sense of community among learners should be developed (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). Online learning provides the opportunity for engaging collaborative learning experiences based on a constructivist approach to education. The development of community is among one of the key processes in the development of a collaborative learning environment. As learners feel connected with the instructor and fellow students, they will not only feel much more engaged but they will be more apt to contribute to the discussion that takes place.

I could continue to list important attributes to the design of an online learning program, but I am quickly realizing that this assignment could turn into a term paper or a thesis if I’m not careful! I will stop typing for now, and I look forward to adding additional “tools” to my “toolbox”.

- Jason

References:

Dabbagh, N. H., Bannan-Ritland, B., & Flannery Silc, K. (2001). Pedagogy and web-based course authoring tools: Issues and implications. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Hedberg, J. G., Brown, C., Larkin, J. L., & Agostinho, S. (2001). Designing practical websites for interactive training. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Khan, B. H. (2001). A framework for web-based training. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Moore, D. R., & Lockee, B. B. (2001). Design strategies for web-based training: Using bandwidth effectively. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Training Publications.

Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Welsh, T. M., & Anderson, B. L. (2001). Managing the development and evolution of web-based training: A service bureau concept. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Web-based training (WBT) has been defined as a, “Flexible and robust delivery method for organizations seeking an online learning solution” (Driscoll, 2001, p. 183). Within the children’s ministries volunteer development process at Christian Life Fellowship, WBT offers a tangible solution to providing accessible, convenient, and interactive for volunteer training. Careful attention to design impacts the learning environment (Hannum, 2001). Therefore, several important design factors should be considered in the development of a WBT solution for volunteer development.

One important design consideration is the model of WBT that is selected. The computer mediated communications model is one of particular interest. According to Hannum (2001), “The purpose of the computer mediated communications (CMC) model is to facilitate communications between instructor and students or among students” (p. 156). The CMC model is a means to circumvent time barriers, allowing learners to participate in the learning experience at their own personal time schedule (Hannum, 2001). Volunteers regularly comment that personal schedule constraints often prevent them from participating in training opportunities. A hybrid WBT model combining online training materials and a discussion forum (Hannum, 2001) would provide a mix of instructive and constructive learning activities.

The learning experience should include both quality instructional materials and dependable support for learners. The online instructional presentations would be an integral component of each volunteer training session. Instructional presentations delivered via the Web can take a variety of forms and generally support interaction between the learner and instructor (Loughner, Harvey, & Milheim, 2001). In addition to instruction and collaboration elements, a training session should include, “a variety of directly useful performance supports such as job aids and reference sheets” (Peal & Wilson, 2001, p. 151).

Beyond the selection of the learning model, other various features of the online learning environment should be considered. The learner should be provided with guidance throughout the learning process (Hall, 2001). The website through which the training will be provided should be thoroughly organized (Hall, 2001), ensuring that learners understand the requirements of the learning activities and they are able to navigate the online learning portal. Learners should have the freedom to freely navigate the lesson, moving among the major sections of the session (Hannum, 2001).

These are just a few of the numerous design factors that should be considered in the development of WBT for volunteer development in the religious education setting.

- Jason Rhode

References:

Driscoll, M. M. (2001). Developing synchronous web-based training for adults in the workplace. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Hall, R. H. (2001). Web-based training site design principles: A literature review and synthesis. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Hannum, W. (2001). Design and development issues in web-based training. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Loughner, P. D., Harvey, D. M., & Milheim, W. D. (2001). Web-based instructional methos for corporate training curricula. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Peal, D., & Wilson, B. G. (2001). Activity theory and web-based training. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based training. Englewod Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

The World Wide Web provides unprecedented access to learning institutions, as learners are no longer inhibited by geographic boundaries (“Culture, cognition and instructional design for the world wide web: An Australian inquiry,” 1998). Technological advancements present political, social, economic, and instructional challenges (Potter, 1990) that designers must address.

“A variety of social factors affect the development, implementation, and spread of technology” (Surry & Farquhar, 1996). Common categories of social factors impacting the adoption of new instructional strategies include: 1) educational need, 2) user characteristics, 3) content characteristics, 4) technology considerations, and 5) organizational capacity (Surry & Farquhar, 1996). These social factors which affect adoption and utilization of instructional strategies should be considered as strongly as the effectiveness of the strategy (Surry & Farquhar, 1996). The time and resources expended toward developmental efforts may be in vain if the social conditions prevent the adoption of a given instructional innovation.

“Instructional design for Web-based learning systems cannot, and does not, exist outside of a consideration of cultural influences” (“Culture, cognition and instructional design for the world wide web: An Australian inquiry,” 1998). These cultural affects parallel the social considerations previously mentioned but can be more specific in nature. A society can contain a multitude of varying cultural norms and mores which undoubtedly influence perceptions and should be considered within the scope of the instructional design.

I agree that cultural, economic, social, and political factors do undoubtedly affect the design and implementation of instructional strategies. The challenge for designers is to identify the factors specific to their application context and to determine what accommodations can be made to ensure accessible instruction.

References

Culture, cognition and instructional design for the world wide web: An Australian inquiry. (1998) Retrieved April 2, 2004 from, http://node.on.ca/networking/july1998/feature2.html

Potter, G. (1990). Computer-related media portability in international distance education: Making informed decisions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(2), 284-298.

Surry, D. W., & Farquhar, J. D. (1996). Incorporating social factors into instructional design theory. In M. Bailey & M. Jones (Eds.), Work, Education, and Technology. DeKalb, IL: LEPS Press.

While not an entirely new educational concept, online learning is one which has received much attention recently. Early instructional design models were based on an interactive design model (Sims & Jones, 2003) which at times could prove to be very inefficient. As the field has continued to progress, many additional models and methodologies have been utilized as foundations for instructional design for online learning. While I recognize that many existing techniques and processes have proven successful, I contend that current methodology can be revised to ensure that primary emphasis is placed on learners and the learning process rather than focusing on the technology used. Modification of current methodology will require active leadership at the highest possible level (Rogers, 2000).

A myriad of crucial elements must be considered when designing online instruction, including: learning design, interface design, interactivity, accessibility, assessment, student support, and utility of content (Sims, Dobbs, & Hand, 2002). While the combination of these issues creates a seemingly daunting task for any instructional designer, effective and successful online instruction, “facilitates collaborative learning, active learning, and independent learning and exceeds the traditional classroom in its ability to connect students and course materials on a round-the-clock basis” (Riedling, 1999).

Relationships between teacher, learner, content, and fellow learners should be among the first elements to be considered (Sims & Jones, 2003) as learning processes are established to facilitate these desired interactive learning experiences. Effective implementation of online learning environments requires a paradigm shift from “teaching” to “learning” (Rogers, 2000) in which the instructor doesn’t view himself as a dispenser of knowledge but rather a facilitator and guide in addition to providing learners with introductory information necessary to begin the learning process. I agree that online learning, “be conceptualized as an environment that integrates collaboration, communication, and engaging content with specific group and independent learning activities and tasks” (Sims et al., 2002).

Another key to any instructional design effort is to have a clear process and team approach linking members of the development team with educators (Sims & Jones, 2003). The focus of these efforts should always be on the students, providing them with both support and critical thinking strategies which will foster success in any context (Sims & Jones, 2003). The participants of the instructional design process such as the educational designer, faculty, and the development team (Sims & Jones, 2003) have an important role in ensuring that the learners remain the focus of the development. While the level of influence for the various team members in this process changes at various phases (Sims & Jones, 2003) their commitment to the success of the learners should remain constant.

Proactive evaluation, described by Sims, Dobbs, Hand (2002) should be another design attribute as participants in the design process develop an understanding of essential elements of the successful learning environment. Strategic intent is a key element of any online pedagogy, as the purposes for online instruction are clarified.
I believe we must be mindful of both methods and media as both influence the way individuals learn today (Kozma, 1994). While a variety of media and methods can be utilized in delivering instruction (Clark, 1994), these learning tools must never usurp the instructional objectives or learner needs. The learners needs, context requirements, and teacher constraints should be focused on before selecting a delivery strategy (Riedling, 1999).

Much is yet to be learned about online learning environments both in terms of effectiveness and achievement outcomes (Sims et al., 2002). The undeniable fact exists that a student body requires diverse learning experiences to target a variety of learning styles (Franklin, Peat, Lewis, & Sims, 2001). As the needs of the learners are kept in proper perspective as a high priority for instructional designers, online learning solutions can be utilized to provide these varied learning experiences.

References

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Franklin, S., Peat, M., Lewis, A., & Sims, R. (2001). Technology at the cutting edge: A large scale evaluation of the effectiveness of educational resources. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). A reply: Media and methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 11-14.

Riedling, A. M. (1999). Distance education: The technology – what you need to know to succeed, an overview. Educational Technology Review, 1(11), 8-13.

Rogers, D. L. (2000). A paradigm shift: Technology integration for higher education in the new millennium. Educational Technology Review, 1(13), 19-33.

Sims, R., Dobbs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: Scaffolding planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135-147.

Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2003). Where practice informs theory: Reshaping instructional design for academic communities of practice in online teaching and learning. Information Technology, Education and Society, 4(1), 3-20.

A successful online learning community does not simply come into existence by chance. Rather, it must be carefully crafted in light of a myriad of philosophical, technological, and practical issues. While the context, content, and learning strategies are all important tangible considerations for any designer to consider (“Building online learning communities,” 2000), essential theoretical and pedagogical elements must also be considered. While the development of an exhaustive list of these success factors is beyond the scope of this assignment, several important elements will be briefly discussed.

General approaches and skills to the online learning community must be considered early in the development process. Palloff & Pratt (1999) list several foundational elements to any successful online learning community, including: access to technology, guidelines and procedures, participation, collaborative learning, and evaluation of the learning process. Technology access refers to the importance of all learners having equal access to necessary computer resources. Guidelines and procedures should be “loose and free-flowing” (Palloff & Pratt, 1999) yet at the same time provide a framework for successful completion of objectives. Buy-in from participants is certainly crucial and minimum levels of participation should be agreed upon. Any lack of participation or presence within an online community can, “critically influence how people behave online, form impressions of others, and negotiate common ground” (Preece, 2000). An atmosphere of collaborative learning should be fostered through the development of a “level playing field” (Palloff & Pratt, 1999) by which all learners should feel comfortable to share openly. Participants should be encouraged to provide feedback to one another on a continual basis (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). Additional foundational keys to consider when developing successful online learning environments could include: “honesty, responsiveness, relevance, respect, openness, and empowerment” (Palloff & Pratt, 1999).

Ultimately, usability and sociability ingredients are the foundational building blocks for a thriving online community (Preece, 2000). As developers consider not only desirable content but also find out who the users will be but what their expectations are (Preece, 2000) they will be equipped with the foundational understanding necessary to begin the community development process. As online community is truly about people rather than simply technology, the needs of the target learner population must be of paramount importance before any decisions regarding technology are made (Preece, 2000).

References:

Building online learning communities. (2000) Retrieved May 9, 2004 from, http://www.elearningpost.com/elthemes/comm.asp

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Online learning provides an engaging and interactive means through which collaborative learning can take place. Learners are provided the opportunity in an online context to interact with the course content, instructor, and fellow learners through technology which is uninhibited by geographic or schedule constraints. Capella University serves as a prime example of the diverse student body that is possible though online learning. These online learners represent a wide variety of cultural and professional backgrounds. Each possesses a unique perspective and mix of expertise which ultimately benefits all the other learners.

Several modes of online communication exist including synchronous and asynchronous. Asynchronous discussion allows the learners to come together to dialogue as well as complete course assignments (Hofmann, 2003) while synchronous communication is crucial for, “establishing team roles, responsibilities, goals, deadlines, and for resolving differences of opinion.”(Curry, n.d.). The current Capella learning platform, Learning Space, supports only asynchronous communication. Students and instructors can log-in to their learning portal after supplying their username and password to view course schedule, media, course room, or learner profiles. Within the online course room, students and instructors can discuss in an asynchronous format the content of each learning unit. This is truly where the collaborative learning takes place, as students and faculty share their insights from the required reading, questions they may have, and even work they are completing towards meeting the course objectives.

As compared to other learning platforms available, Learning Space is quite archaic at best, and provides a cumbersome set of tools for the learner to navigate. For example, the platform does not keep a record of the previously viewed messages. This forces users to try to keep some kind of manual record of their status in the course discussion. Such frustrating intricacies of an online collaboration methodology can be solved through software enhancements to provide users with an easy-to-use mode for collaborative learning. I’m excited to learn that Capella is keeping these user issues a priority and is making upgrading to a more enhanced learning platform this summer. From my knowledge of the WebCT Vista platform, this will be a wonderful improvement for learners and faculty alike!

While the technology which enables online learning is the mode by which this learning methodology is possible, it is important to remember that the quality of the online learning environment is dependent upon the quality of the instructional design (Hofmann, 2003). The engaging collaborative format possible through the online context provides rich constructive learning opportunities for students.

References:

Curry, D. B. (n.d.) Collaborative, connected, and experiential learning: Reflections of an online learner. Retrieved May 2, 2004 from, http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed01/2.html

Hofmann, J. (2003) Building success for e-learners. Retrieved May 2, 2004 from, http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/jul2003/hofmann.htm

As the Director of Children’s Ministries at Christian Life Fellowship church, I am responsible to provide the children’s ministries volunteer training sessions in a manner which is most beneficial, convenient, and accessible for volunteers. While optional monthly volunteer training sessions are currently offered September thru May to provide volunteers the opportunity to receive professional development training on topics pertinent to current children’s ministry pragmatics, less than ten percent of volunteers take advantage of these training sessions. With the increasing schedule constraints that people are facing, it is conceivable that an online format of training would be a much more advantageous avenue for attaining volunteer development training than the current face-to-face monthly training workshop. The online format could provide a much more accessible avenue for attaining volunteer development training than the current face-to-face monthly training workshop.

The proposed online training format would consist of a variety of elements which would all serve the purpose of fostering an engaging and collaborative learning environment. Volunteers would take on the active roles of knowledge generation, collaboration, and process management (Palloff & Pratt, 1999) within the learning framework. These learners would receive an email with a link to view an interactive instructional presentation online. After choosing to participate and viewing this presentation, individuals could access additional resources relevant to the topic discussed and then participate in an asynchronous discussion board. The collaborative learning processes involved would afford volunteers the opportunity to work together in achieving deeper levels of knowledge generation through a, “shared process of meaning-making” (Palloff & Pratt, 2001, p. 32). While not a pure “student-centered” format, this would be an initial step towards providing training in a more accessible, relevant, and engaging context.

The goal of this interactive learning process would be to provide volunteers with additional opportunities to ask questions and seek out additional resources beyond even what is covered in the instructional presentations. This constructivist learning format would entail a complete paradigm shift from the current instructivist learning philosophy that has permeated the volunteer that that is currently being offered. The current pedagogical foundation does not consider the needs of the learners. According to Land & Hand, “Pedagogical foundations form the affordances and activities of the environment and should be inextricably linked to corresponding psychological foundations” (Land & Hannafin, 2000).

From the needs, task, and contextual analyses that I have conducted, I have deduced that the technological, cultural, and pragmatics of the current scenario do favor the development of such student-centered online learning environments. Volunteers surveyed have indicated their interest in participating in a more convenient format of training, with 87% stating that they would like to participate in a sample online training workshop.

As I examine the logistical and financial considerations in making online training available, the pragmatic foundations, “recognizing the reality check of learning environment design and implementation” (Land & Hannafin, 2000) certainly illustrate the feasibility of developing an online training program using a combination of instructional presentations with synchronous and asynchronous communication. There is a no more efficient or effective means to provide ongoing training to my children’s ministries volunteers than through an online format.

- Jason

References:

Land, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2000). Student-centered learning environments. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

The term “electracy” was a foreign term to me prior to this unit. However, I have been cognizant of its influence on education for quite some time. Electracy is defined as, “an ability to use technology to gather and reflect on the use of information for different purposes” (Erstad, 2003). Proficiency in this “literacy for a post-typographic world” that Erstad refers to is becoming a requirement for learners in the twenty-first century.

While learning domains remain constant, the modes in which concepts are learned certainly can be tailored to a given topic or lesson. As an instructional designer, I seek to continually evaluate and identify the most effective learning processes that I’ve used. I look to present content in the most relevant and applicable means possible. I agree whole-heartedly with the statement that Randy Christensen made this last week at the Assemblies of God National Children’s Ministries Conference when he said, “People equate the relevancy of the message with the relevancy of the method.” In the realm of religious education especially, now more than ever, relevancy is a crucial element to effective instruction. A relevant and balanced approach in instructional design is imperative.

Erstad summarized the necessary balance between formal learning contexts and more informal learning processes by stating, “The relationship between formal and informal ways of learning needs to be highlighted more strongly to create meaningful learning environments for students” (Erstad, 2003, p.26). The task for any instructional designer is to look to develop balance in the design and then for educators to maintain that balanced approach through the instruction. The reality is that there is no single design or approach that will meet the needs of all students. Flexibility on the part of all parties in the instructional design and delivery processes will ensure that an environment of customization is available.

Reference:

Erstad, O. (2003). Electracy as empowerment: Student activities in learning environments using technology. Nordic Journal of Youth Research, 11(1), 11-28.

Scholars have theorized that learning takes places through a multitude of domains, including: behavioral, cognitive, affective, and collaborative. Best practice models from throughout a variety of educational settings have confirmed the effectiveness of instructional strategies which identify these learning modes and seek to incorporate these learning processes, when applicable, into learning environments.

The behavioral or psychomotor learning domain focuses upon the processes of mastery of physical skills. Physical skills have been categorized in a variety of ways, but invariably include cognitive, psychomotor, reactive, and interactive domains (Romiszowski, 1999). Romiszowski (1999) stresses not only the general learning processes of psychomotor skill learning but also the instructional strategies necessary for skills development. The challenge for educators teaching physical skills is for learners to transfer knowledge of these skills into proficient practice.

Bloom first defined the cognitive domain of learning as one which deals with the, “recall or recognition of knowledge and the development of understandings and intellectual abilities and skills” (Reigeluth & Moore, 1999). While Bloom’s taxonomy is arguably the most well-known articulation of cognitive processes, others such as Gagne, Ausubel, Anderson, Merrill have all presented similar cognitive theories which express a variety of levels of interaction between learner and content. Therefore, the focus of cognitive learning is built upon the understanding that learners attain knowledge through a variety of interactions and processes.

The affective domain is one which, ”refers to components of affective development focusing on internal changes or processes” (Martin & Reigeluth, 1999). Or, stated another way, the affective domain relates primarily to the motivational factors involved in learning. A taxonomy of internalization from least to most includes: receiving, responding, valuing, organization, and characterization (Martin & Reigeluth, 1999). Affective components are strongly related to other elements of learning processes, and are at times not easily distinguishable.

Collaborative learning has been defined as, “a structured exchange between two or more participants designed to enhance achievement of the learning objectives” (Clark & Mayer, 2003). Collaboration has typically taken place in the classroom setting through the use of group work, etc. but has been expanded into a plethora of applications in the online learning environment. While traditional collaborative learning opportunities have typically been synchronous, many online instructional strategies now implement asynchronous collaborative exercises. These asynchronous collaborations are not dependent upon schedule constraints of learners or faculty. The undeniable fact exists that a variety of levels of structure exist among collaborative environments and that not all forms of collaborative learning prove equally effective (Clark & Mayer, 2003).

Each learning domain examined certainly clarifies important learning processes. The task for instructional designers and educators alike is to evaluate what the needs of the students are and then to employ strategies which help students meet instructional objectives.

References:

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning together on the web. In e-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Martin, B. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Affective education and the affective domain: Implications for instructional-design theories and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructinoal-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol.
2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reigeluth, C. M., & Moore, J. (1999). Cognitive education and the cognitive domain. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Romiszowski, A. (1999). The development of physical skills: Instruction in the psychomotor domain. In Instructional-design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.