EDTECH 522 Module 5 Reflection: Building an Online Course

This was an interesting assignment! I have used Canvas sparingly as an instructor and this really gave me a chance to better understand its capabilities. Beyond that "mechanical" aspect, I now have a much better sense of what to do (and what to avoid) when building a course, for online learners of any age.  I'm the primary person at the school who has responsibility for creating these teacher (or student) courses, so this assignment was timely, as well.

I've been on the receiving end of a lot of online courses (through BSU and elsewhere), so I think I have a reasonable perspective on what does work organizing courses. I think this manifested itself while building the Notability for Teachers and Students course. I was very conscious of three considerations: course navigation, easy to use course pages (aware of limited student learning 'channels' capacity) and a clear course "entry point."  My goals were:

• provide simple, consistent and complete navigation so the learner would never feel lost or frustrated about the navigation.
• provide the 'right' amount of content detail. 
•  ensure students felt comfortable and confident entering the course - understand objectives, due dates, assessment, course navigation, and so on.

I am highly confident that I accomplished the first goal. I went over the navigation many, many times, adding appropriate links on every page I could think of that may assist a learner in getting through the lesson with no (or at least low!) frustration. I had a friend look over the lesson as well to confirm that links made sense, worked as designed and so on. I caught myself making last-minute changes right up to the point (and even a bit beyond) when I posted the link as 'complete.' I have a good sense now what to do for future courses to make the navigation as easy to use and bulletproof as possible, and I am happy for the learning achieved in this important area.

The second goal is a bit harder to judge. Since I know the tool (Notability) reasonably well, it was

Book photo - public domain

easy to fall into the trap of  'just one more thing' added to the page. One of the big limitations, to me, using the web  for delivering course materials is the amount of scrolling sometimes required to understand the 'full picture' of what's being taught. So, I tried my best to be cognizant of that as I developed my pages. This manifested itself  as I split larger modules (units) into smaller ones, and split assignments into smaller, more digestible chunks.  Part of my approach was to include screen shots of the Notability iPad app, and that did necessitate more page real estate used than desirable, which meant more learner page scrolling. I will await what my peers and professor say in terms of how well I met this goal. My reviewer said it was not an issue, and felt the overall result was not overwhelming. I am hopeful that's an accurate assessment!

Goal three, the entry point, was something I wrestled with, and the structure and page content went through several iterations. I kept reviewing the requirements for the page, and made MANY modifications to the page to clarify expectations. I hope I set the students up for success as they entered the course. It also helped that I was able to look at other students' end results before I submitted my course.  Simple things not initially obvious became more clear as I reviewed the intro page. For instance, setting off the information about due dates, objectives, assessments, navigation, etc. with headings to separate them made a huge difference in how the page looked, and its readability. A simple change, with a high-impact end result.

In summary, this was a challenging and ultimately fulfilling assignment that definitely improved my skills in designing online instruction. I feel much more confident in my ability to create an online learning environment that will much more effectively support student learning.

Public domain image downloaded from http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=44496&picture=book on 11/23/15

EDTECH 522 - Module 3 Reflection

Evaluating a tool that could be used in an online learning environment was interesting. I'm relatively confident when it comes to blended learning and use of technology to augment classroom instruction. Some approaches and assumptions one can make in a blended learning environment have to be modified a lot to support a purely online learning experience. For example, I needed to ensure that the tool I was proposing had some capability for 'team use' as I felt that was an important component of online learning. Looking for and then defining how best to use a tool to support online learning was an interesting challenge and I learned quite a bit accomplishing this week's task.

Two items were of particular interest in the Ko and Rossen reading this week. In Chapter 6, Building an Online Classroom, a very cogent point was made to very seriously consider pacing issues that can occur in an online course. I have felt this, as a student, on the receiving end,when I've been exposed to large amounts of work over a short period of time, as well as the opposite, a long period (multiple weeks) to accomplish what seems to be a relatively small chunk of work. Upon reflection, this is not a lot different that a face to face classroom. Everyone works at their own pace, and that's no different online or face to face.

However, one big difference that can slow learning is the 'click time' involved, and that is unique to online learning. Often, this is (simply) understanding the instructor's approach - where to go within the context of Moodle, Canvas, a Google Site, or whatever the instructor is using as the Learning Management System, and can certainly slow the learning down. Getting 'used to' the particular instructor's organization method can slow learning. Similarly, not having excellent folder/file organization on your computer (or Google Drive, or wherever) can create headaches as well. Too often, I have downloaded the same syllabus or other instructional material, only because that was the 'fastest' way to (re)acquire the information. Yes, it's on my computer (somewhere!), but the best way to get to it is simply to re-download it. Takes time, and is not terribly productive. 

Later in Chapter 4, quiz tools are discussed. Quiz tools have evolved since this chapter was written. One of the best formative assessment approaches I've discovered in recent months are tools that allow videos to be loaded, and then quiz questions can be embedded into the video by the instructor. Zaption, EduPuzzle and EduCanon are three such web based tools. At my school, we are working with all 3, and it looks like providing videos with embedded quiz questions is an effective way for students to deepen learning. These tools also provide teacher dashboards that provide information beyond just correct/incorrect answers, including time on video, time per question, and more. It's an evolving set of tools that appears to have a lot of traction to provide more effective - and actionable - formative assessment.

In Stavredes' book, Chapter 11 and 12 both provided some insight and considerations about building effective online courses for students. The description and details provided about providing questions or activities that support growth in critical thinking was especially interesting to me. The series of questions identified on pages 110 and 111 drilling down into clarity, accuracy, relevance, significance and so on seemed right on point to assist in deepening learning, as well as practicing critical thinking skills.

Chapter 12 had many interesting ideas about "social presence" and collaboration between students. Specifically, Exhibit 12.4 "How to Incorporate Critical Thinking in Your Discussion" was particularly interesting. Defining a list of "Intellectual Standards" such as Clarity, Accuracy, Depth, Breadth, and so on (as identified in Chapter 10, noted above, and based upon the Paul-Elder Model), the exhibit included questions to consider to spark deeper thinking. For instance, the Intellectual Standard "Significance: focusing on the important, not trivial" included questions to consider "is this the most important problem to consider?" or  "is this the central idea to focus on?" These concepts, while not focused or useful solely for online learning environments, seem to be well-thought approaches to encourage deeper thinking, and in turn providing opportunities for students to practice critical thinking and collaboration skills.

Overall, this week's readings did challenge and help develop my own ability to develop effective coursework, online or blended learning!

EDTECH 522 Module 2 Reflection: Evaluating Courses

Here is the Canvas Intro evaluation I did for an internal course used at my school. Here is the Creating a Linked In Profile course evaluation I also did as part of this assignment.

I gained knowledge in evaluating more concretely about learning objectives, assessment and instructional materials and how they interact. Correspondingly, I think this evaluation process will affect my course design in the future. For instance, in the Canvas course that a coworker in edtech at my school had created, the learning objectives are fairly clear, the assessments are ok, and the overall instructional materials are intact and relatively high quality. For our needs, the approach taken is probably appropriate and what we needed. Part of the reasoning is he did not have unlimited time to create this course, and so took the appropriate time in certain ways to build it out so learning could occur, and took some reasonable short cuts elsewhere that did not impact student learning results.

As I thought about this, what’s interesting is how the learning objectives, assessment, and instructional materials can vary from course to course. For instance, in some courses, defining and executing REALLY high quality assessment may be the critical component for student learning and success.  That holds true about the instructional materials as well - it is hard to envision a successful learning result if the instructional materials are low quality. In another course, if the objectives are not stated clearly, that can negatively influence the result of the learning.

The point is, depending upon the subject matter, the intended students, the time frame to create (or take) the course, whether it’s self paced or not, etc. can impact the ‘priority’ and relative importance of any of the evaluation criteria. In one course, excellent assessment may be paramount, in others, it’s all about the instructional materials, and so on. As said, it is hard to to envision a course that would have high quality student learning results that did not have excellent instructional materials.

If I were to pick one category that is the minimum area, it would be instructional materials. If I were to describe  a minimum of areas to evaluate, it would be the clarity of learning objectives, high quality and relevant assessment and high quality, engaging instructional materials.  In reality, all of the items in the checklist would need to, at some level, be evaluated, I believe. In my case, there was not a need - right now - for accessibility considerations, but who is to say when we might have an individual on staff who does need that extra capability to successfully navigate the course.

While both courses were generally high quality, I was impressed by the 3rd party course I evaluated - there was more introductory material included, which was appropriate for that course. In addition, I felt that the design overall was a bit more robust. That does make sense since it is a course available to the 'outside', as opposed to the course created internally here at my school.

Finally, one bit of additional learning - gained from the “How to build a Linked In Profile” course - was to include an FAQ section. This did a good job of getting ‘out of the way’ some of the more common questions in one section.

EDTECH 522: Module 1 Reflection

Discuss 2 – 3 critical issues you discovered in the SLOAN-C report entitled, Changing Course (2012).

The 2012 Sloan report was interesting to read. I found the report interesting, and in particular one statistic that was referenced in the report really stood out. When polled, 69.1% of the chief academic officers agreed with the statement “Online education is critical to the long- term strategy of my institution." Clearly leaders at the university level see online education as an important part of their organization's plans. Yet, there are significant barriers to online education (which was described in the report as courses that are "fully online," that is, typically have no face to face interactivity, and where 80% or more of the content is delivered online). 

One of the barriers to more widespread adoption of online learning was the need for "more discipline on the part of online students and lower retention rates." Nearly 90% of academic leaders see more discipline as a barrier to wider adoption. In other words, online learning is not for everyone. I know from personal experience that it has taken some significant adjustments on my part to successfully complete the BSU online courses. I have struggled at times in terms of motivation to complete the work required, and at times questioning the assignments I've been given (to a higher degree than in face to face courses I've taken). While I have adapted and learned much, it has not always been smooth sailing. The lower retention rates - more students than anticipated dropping out - was also a concern. It would be interesting to understand why those students dropped. Given the financial commitment to the courses, I would like to understand the reasoning behind dropping a course. 

Other barriers that were noted include a concern about the quality of learning outcomes, the amount of time it takes to run a successful online course, and the faculty acceptance of online learning. I think these are intertwined. I have also seen a wide variety of learning outcomes, and in some of my coursework I wondered why particular emphasis was place on certain outcomes. It seemed as though some of the courses needed a bit of an update, and in tern an adjustment of some or many of the outcomes. This is not a trivial task, and is certainly related to how much time it takes to successfully run an online course. This is particularly true in ed tech, where paradigms rapidly shift and the likelihood of more frequent course updating is high. That will impact the amount of time taken by the instructor, most certainly. So, if the word gets out - and it would seem like to do so - that online courses are NOT simple and easy to manage within the context of a semester or quarter, AND the courses do require frequent refreshes to stay relevant and engaging, I could certainly see that some faculty may not fully accept online courses. They may also view "online" as a cheaper, less meaningful way to teach a course, which could mean lower status for the faculty teaching online. 

The Sloan report indicated that only about 30% of their faculty accept the legitimacy of online education, which was the LOWEST number recorded since 2004. In other words, faculty's perception of online education is going down, not up. I found that a little curious, and while I personally don't believe that to be true, I do suspect some faculty would feel that way. It does surprise me that perception of validity of online courses is going down. Not surprisingly, at those institutions with a significant online presence already, the faculty acceptance was higher, but again, not even a majority felt their faculty accepted online education (38.4 percent). 

The bottom line seems to be that, while academic leaders see a huge need to increase their online education presence and capability, there are significant barriers for both the institution and the student that must be addressed before significant adoption can occur.

Where are you on the Grow's Staged Self-Directed Learning Model described in Stavredes (2011)? What is the implication of this model for you as an online teacher? 


After reviewing Grow's Learning Module, I would position myself somewhere between "Interested" and "Involved" Learner. I feel that I do have a reasonable level of understanding regarding the tools and and at least some of the techniques required of an online teacher. This would tend to put me at the Involved Learner level. However, I am not particularly confident - not having taught any online courses directly before - nor am I particularly motivated to try to actually teach online (a lack of opportunity contributes to this).  These two aspects put me at the Interested Learner level. Upon looking at the text description of Involved Learner level three, it looks as though I more closely fit there, as I would be someone who would respond to an instructor as he or she facilitated my learning in this area. 

I think the Grow's Learning Model is an interesting way to gauge learners. I can envision using this model as an important tool to use when understanding a particular group of students - collectively and individually - when teaching an online (or face to face!) course, and how to most successfully support them in their learning. 

EDTECH 522 Learning Log

Look here for posts about EDTECH 522, Online Teaching for Adult Learners.

EDTECH 541 Final Post - Course Reflection

Part One: Course Reflection

What have you learned? Other than for my own subjects (Social Studies and Language Arts for Middle School students), I had never really studied what tools and techniques work most effectively in another subject area.  We have a strong Science teaching staff, who are also interesting in deepening the technology integration in their classrooms. So, I chose High School Biology as my focus. This was a good thing. I was able to dig in over the course of the semester and find a large number of high quality websites and iPad apps that I think will enhance student learning. My next major step is to sit down with one or more Biology teacher, show them the results of my coursework and then develop a plan for them to start integrating what appear to be very high-quality resources. If they want, I can assist them in  searching on their own  for resources, using some of what I found as a starting point.

How has theory guided development of the projects and assignments you created? Understanding theory definitely helped me  as I developed projects for the course. Understanding what does, and does not work, regarding how learning materials need to be presented, the appropriate scaffolding of information, and even how the brain can process the material, was very helpful in developing my content. For instance,  learning that a student's auditory and visual channels for learning are very small contributed significantly in how to develop multimedia resources for effective learning. Even though you, as the subject matter expert, may be tempted to include "everything and the kitchen sink" on a page, that has a deleterious effect on student learning: too much information (verbal, other audio, written word, images) on a page can stop the students' learning before it has even begun. People are just not mentally able to take in that much material at once. This idea (the Coherence Principle) was brought forth in my Edtech 513 Multimedia course, and it was good to see the same concepts bubble up in this course.

How did the coursework demonstrate mastery of the AECT standards?  I feel confident that my course work does reflect mastery of the AECT standards.  Please refer to the analysis of the course standards on my Edtech 541 Google Site. 

How have you grown professionally? I have learned, or had reinforced, a considerable amount about how to better integrate technology into the High School Science classroom. As I noted above, I now have considerable ammunition to work with the science teachers at my school regarding how to more effectively integrate technology - in a practical way - into their coursework. Since my job is to support teachers in doing that, this is of supreme importance to me. Of course, it applies to the whole school, not only Science subjects.  I have also (re)learned how to break projects out into bite sized pieces to successfully complete. The assignments every week provided me good practice for my organizational and project management skills.

How has your own teaching practice or thoughts about teaching been impacted by what you have learned or accomplished in this course? What will you do differently as an educator as a result of this course? More than anything, I think that I have honed my approach to working with teachers, based upon this course. I see how busy the teachers here are - with considerable academic and "other" deadlines to meet. For me, it's instrumental that I be able to support them by "cutting to the chase" and finding relevant tools, sound approaches, and reasonable "how to"' steps to effectively integrate tech more fully in their coursework.  This goes well beyond just the how to's regarding the function of the tool or resource; the key component is the integration into their actual curriculum. Taking the Edtech 541 course has given me some tools and techniques to do just that.

As I noted above, it's always tempting to include everything in a multimedia presentation used for learning. This course reinforced what I already knew: less is more when presenting learners (teachers) with new information, and of course engaging the learner as much as possible (no passive "sit and git" in my training classes!)   As  staff developer, being mindful of what the student needs to successfully learn has to always be top of mind.

Part Two: Assess Your Performance

Upon reflection, I am very pleased with the body of work I have created for Edtech 541,  Integrating Technology into the Classroom Curriculum. I have consistently provided information in clear and concise ways, and I think I added value to other students who chose to read my posts. I also feel that my responses to others were substantial and added to the ongoing conversation. I could have done better by posting earlier on occasion, so more people could have read and responded to my posts.

Content  70/70- I consistently made clear connections to current content, as well as real life situations with significant detail. In particular, the posts on Internet Safety, Mobile Wifi and  Accessibility Options on iPad exemplified some of my best work.

Readings and Resources 18/20 -  I did make references to outside readings and did use APA style references as appropriate in my posts.

Timeliness 15/20 - I did do all the postings required with quality, and most were done early enough for others to respond. 

Responses to Other Students - 25/30 - I did respond to my peers with substantial posts that added to the conversation. I  made only one substantial response to a peer in one or two weeks of the semester.

EDTECH 541: Accessibility options on iPad

The iPad and other iOS devices offers a number of accessibility features to assist users. Many of these features can be found in Settings --> General --> Accessibility. There are four sections, each with a few features allowing users to pick and choose what is necessary to make their experience more user-friendly.

iPad Settings

Vision features assist the visually impaired or blind student. Some of the settings allow the user to manipulate the size of text and icons. There is a voice-over feature, using Siri to verbalize screen touches, as well as using a finger to draw letters instead of typing. Speech reads the content on the screen, making email, text messages, web pages and books accessible.

iPads also allow for a braille display when connected to a wireless braille device. These displays allow for braille in a number of languages.

Communication and collaboration between visually and hearing impaired students can take place using Facetime, the iOS video calling feature. Students who use sign language can see each other, including gestures and facial expressions, making Facetime a valuable tool.

Hearing impaired students have a number of options on an iOS device. They can turn on Closed Captioning to view CC enabled videos and podcasts, including ones in iTunes U. There is mono audio available for students who hear best from one ear. And iOS offers connectivity for Bluetooth-enabled hearing aids.

Students with physical or motor challenges have some options on the iPad. AssistiveTouch allows users who can’t pinch or spread fingers to use a one-touch or assistive device to substitute for the more complication gestures.

Students can use Siri to provide certain directions to the device, such as sending a message or scheduling a task. Many apps that require typing now has the Dictation feature, where students can talk instead of type. There is also Switch Control that allows Bluetooth-enabled hardware to perform certain on-screen tasks.

Students with speech impairments can use Facetime to communicate using sign language. iMessage allows them to collaborate using text. Speech Selection allows the device to speak for you. This feature can also help students with speech development, providing an always-accessible model.

From the list of accessibility features listed above, it appears that Apple is making a thoughtful effort to assist disabled users. From my observation, just in the past couple years this list has grown, especially with accessibility to Bluetooth-enabled assistive tools. In addition, Apple has partnered with third-party app developers to provide learning tools to students and others who need them.

Here are some links to additional iOS accessibility details:

https://www.apple.com/accessibility/

https://www.apple.com/ios/accessibility-tips/

http://www.imore.com/how-use-accessibility-iphone-and-ipad-ultimate-guide