Edited by Steve Meaney, 2/12/2012 6:49 PM
Comments on the Con Opening Statement
P1, opening quote – I would say that there are no poster children for bad lecturers/teachers either; sure we’ve all heard about/know someone who isn’t the best teacher, but it’s not advertised. I think that it is a bit disingenuous to make this statement. T
P1, 1. Roles – all of the roles mentioned directly map onto the characteristics of the good teachers which we identified in our opening statement. I think that we could ask a direct question back to ask them to identify a specific characteristic of a good teacher which is unique to the online environment, that speaks to the teaching rather than the technology.
P1, Time - the figures for the prep time are not referenced; I've done some digging and there are comparison figures outlining the extra investement for online work; I would argue that the additional time input is a factor of the availability of the lecturer to the students and the expectations of the students that the lecturers are 'always on'. This is a design issue rather than an inheret flaw of the approach, for example it would be viable to state at the state that responses will be dealt with on days A and B, as long as the students know. I do sometihng similar in that I will say to students that I typically will respond to them within 25 hrs but I'm not always in a position to do so. But at least they know the score. Same issue re. online work - its about setting the boundaries and limits. Second issue is that the development of the online activities, accumulation of links, website design, resource development, question banks etc. all undoubtedly do take a lot of time. But the key issue is that they are *reusable learning objects* in that they can all be used in suibsequent years. Over time this means that the time-cost will flatten out and (while I couildn;'t get any evidence for this) I suspect that the time required will decrease as the shift towards moderation occurs. It takes a long time to accumualte an MCQ question abnk but once its done its done and can be used again and again, just like developiong a lab protocol, problem solving exercise etc,
P1, Skills - Are the con group really advocating the position that F2F settings dont require empathy and an eye for motivation? I find that there is a tendency to list many skills as online only when they are clearly applicable to the real world setting.
P2, Comms - admittedly there are challenges, but the limitations they are highlighting are limited to certain forms of online contact (e.g. textual) and given the advances in technology these are less of an issue as we make the transition to video etc.
P2,Pressure - while the pressure point is well made, particulatly in todays climate, I tihnk that its important to emphasise the ID and design elements here in that its important to establish a framework for interaction. I would also suggest that we directly ask Are DD trying to state that there is no anxiety in a F2F setting? That a lecturer?teacher has never become frustrateed with a projector, a whiteboard covered in permanent marker, a room that's too cold/hot/noisy etc? I tihnk that the OHP comments in our opening statement can be used to rebut this.
P2, Concerns - Agree that there are concerns, but make the point that educators are continually adapting to new approaches - OHP to data projector, landline to mobile phone, typewriter to PC etc.
P3, Pedagogy 1, Choose.... - I agree with the statement but would say that this is not an argument against technology per se; rather it is an argument in favour of a good design/good ID which accounts for the affordances of the medium/technology
P4, Blend - We are all on the belnded spectrum (in fact we have been placed upon it), the issue is where are we on it? This again is not an argument against the online teaching approach.
P4, Implement . . . .Would say that as the DD team highlight there is no one optimal belnding solution, so too there is no one e-Moderating model to use online. Again we are looking at a design issue which is related to the input of the teacher
P4, Assessment - Its not clear if this is a fully online or a blended course that Beebe is discussing. In addition, there is a statemetn that 'peer-assessment and self-assessment . . .must be included'. This is a strong statement aand I would like a reference to back it up. I searched the 50 page Beebe doc, but didn't find this statement
P5, Competence - There is a quote in the middle of this:
“In order to be an effective e-moderator, e-moderators must be confident and competent at using a community’s virtual learning environment." If we take out the workl virtual we are left with confident and competent at using a community’s learning environment i.e. classrooms, seminar rooms, laboratories etc etc. We can argure that there is little difference here and could formulate a question to highlight this.
DEbbies comments
Question 1:
Learning, in the full sense of the word, is usually much richer than what the instructional context provides for; therefore does the online instructor through the virtue of the wealth of resources used not provide a better well-rounded education?
Question 2:
Given the changing role and importance of information technology in all work contexts, do educators not have a responsibility to develop their own working knowledge of how to facilitate learning in this changing environment?
d
ENDA's comments
My first two questions, I suppose are generic in the sense that they don’t directly relate to the “teacher” but more to the environment in which we are moving towards and the constraints we are facing in higher education if we continue to teach using f2f methods e.g. higher numbers accessing higher education and financial constraints – we must find new approaches.
Question 3 seeks clarification on the major differences they have highlighted between the characteristics of an online lecturer and a traditional lecturer.
Question 1
“People expect to be able to work, learn, and study whenever and wherever they want to” (Horizon Report 2012). With the increasing number of learners seeking to access higher education and the desire by learners to combine work and learning, how can f2f possibly satisfy this ever increasing demand?
Question 2
“Education paradigms are shifting to include online learning, hybrid learning and collaborative models” (Horizon Report 2012). Institutions are under financial pressures to cut costs and come up with alternatives to traditional f2f methods. Whilst we acknowledge there will be initial set-up costs in an online environment, the benefits of attracting a wider student base can be realised. How can traditional f2f methods compete with this new approach to teaching and learning?
Question 3
Are the characteristics of an e-moderator as mentioned Point 1 of your Opening Statement that different to a traditional f2f lecturer. From our experience as lecturers / trainers the same characteristics are present for both online lecturers and traditional lecturers i.e. a facilitator, a mentor, assistant, a provocateur, an observer and a participant. Can you provide one which is unique to an online lecturer?
EDELs comments
Opening quote:
‘the hundreds of e-learning course titles that went
unused, the internal battles between IT and training, and the purchases of expensive learning
management software that went un- or under-utilised.” Carliner & Shank (2008)
- unused courses is often an issue of readiness. Look at the drop out rates in first year students. E-l earning is not going to change readiness.
- Expensive software: many free open source software available i.e. Moodle
- look at the drop out rates in first year students. E-l earning is not going to change readiness.
- Companies unrealistic expectation of benefits of e learning courses cannot be held accountable for the past failing of eLearning.
Question 1:
Learning, in the full sense of the word, is usually much richer than what the instructional context provides for; therefore does the online instructor through the virtue of the wealth of resources used not provide a better well-rounded education?
Question 2:
Given the changing role and importance of information technology in all work contexts, do educators not have a responsibility to develop their own working knowledge of how to facilitate learning in this changing environment?
Question 3:
You have identified the characteristics of a good ‘online’ tutor but should these characteristics not be of all good tutors regardless of the learning environment?
Question 4:
The biggest obstacles to the acceptance of this new pedagogy are a lack of understanding of what it is and a failure on behalf of the tutors to recognize its inherent value to students, academia, and society. Therefore is there a need for the continued professional development of tutors to keep pace with technologies?
Angela's comments
P1
Roles - they suggest that the e-m
For many people in remote rural locations on line courses may be the only chance they will get to pursue educational oppoturnities