The Blog has been an exceptional experience that has detailed one of the many tools that distance education instructors can use as asynchronous communication for participants. This experience has forced me (in a positive manner) to open up to methods of communication that allow me to compose experiences in the course, as well as thoughts, about those experiences. Through this media I have been able to set up an account and create a well choreographed virtual log of my thoughts in the course. This tool has many uses for participants in a distance education course, and should be probed more, to find its exact use as a communication tool.
I would highly recommend this tool for future courses and would use this tool myself as a future distance education instructor. One of the downfalls of the blog is its originality. The blog is a great tool; however, technology is advancing into social network sites that allow for blogs within the site, which takes away from the novelty of the composition web log. Over all the experience was of quality nature and I look forward to my future endeavors with similar projects.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Differentiation between DE and F-T-F
In the Module 3 conference we discussed the role of the instructor and the aspects of distance education (de) and face-to-face (f-t-f) learning; which, really made me think about many aspects of both educational methods. Eventually, it is inevitable that traditional courses will start to bend and add new methods to make the f-t-f courses more convenient and accessible to the students taking the courses (this can already be seen in the transitioning to hybrid courses and the use of de as an outside tool for f-t-f courses).
The roles of course instructors are continuously changing and adapting to new methods in both systems. In previous post, I had stated that the traditional instructor's role stay's primarily the same, as the head of the class, with pre-planned (scripted) material that is being read to students. However, this is untrue, as the f-t-f instructors are continuously changing methods of teaching by teaching online courses or adding online materials to the f-t-f course. One of the interesting aspects that differ between the modes of teaching is the design. One of the design differences mentioned by Bates & Poole (2003) is the use of one instructor to create a course (more beneficial when using other outside sources) for f-t-f, however, the DE course needs many different faculty members to create the course (p. 158). With many different faculty members being utilized to create a de course, how much more money does it cost to run the de course over a f-t-f course?
This concept is interesting as it shows the amount of work that is put into creating ease of education. It will be interesting in time to see how much of the f-t-f classroom is transitioned into the web. The explosion of de institutions and online programs has already occurred, and now it is almost a waiting game to see how much is left of the traditional classroom in a couple of years.
Reference
Bates & Poole, Chapter 7, "Approaches to the Design of Technology-Based Learning," pp. 153-179
The roles of course instructors are continuously changing and adapting to new methods in both systems. In previous post, I had stated that the traditional instructor's role stay's primarily the same, as the head of the class, with pre-planned (scripted) material that is being read to students. However, this is untrue, as the f-t-f instructors are continuously changing methods of teaching by teaching online courses or adding online materials to the f-t-f course. One of the interesting aspects that differ between the modes of teaching is the design. One of the design differences mentioned by Bates & Poole (2003) is the use of one instructor to create a course (more beneficial when using other outside sources) for f-t-f, however, the DE course needs many different faculty members to create the course (p. 158). With many different faculty members being utilized to create a de course, how much more money does it cost to run the de course over a f-t-f course?
This concept is interesting as it shows the amount of work that is put into creating ease of education. It will be interesting in time to see how much of the f-t-f classroom is transitioned into the web. The explosion of de institutions and online programs has already occurred, and now it is almost a waiting game to see how much is left of the traditional classroom in a couple of years.
Reference
Bates & Poole, Chapter 7, "Approaches to the Design of Technology-Based Learning," pp. 153-179
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Teacher-to-learner versus learner-to-learner?
This concept is one that I am very confused as to my own feelings on the issue. Are we moving in the correct direction with the model changing from teacher-to-learner to learner-to-learner? Is their not a reason we have an instructor as the head of the class? Wouldn’t there be a large amount of misinterpreted data being shared with the learner-to-learner model? I struggle to find the logical meaning in having students teach themselves and other students; as I think they miss a crucial aspect of the learning process; which, is someone who has experienced the field or studied it in great length, teaching those who have not. Isn’t the point of higher education to be an apprentice, and learn a field of study that will promote our careers in that field?
Don't take this the wrong way, I do understand that distance education students are and need to be "self directed" and I do believe that many courses are materials handed to students, and students decode what has been given to them; however, I think we need to make sure instructors guide discussions with (some room for non guided discussion), and not all non guided discussions. This may sound a little confusing and I hope this is not the case. It is important that there is someone that not only structures the course, but also guides the course (structured and not all flexible model).
The flexible approach has many benefits and I think the most important benefit is that it teaches the student to be more creative and autonomous in their own studies. However, I believe you can be an autonomous learner without having a free from structure course. The conclusion that I am drawing is that a healthy mix of flexible and structured learning is the most productive teaching model. One of the benefits of the flexible model is that it allows for more perspectives and a more in-depth conversation in the classroom. All in all, I do believe a professor or experienced instructor should head the class and guide the information flow in the direction in which was pre-set to the start of the course.
References
Bates & Poole, Chapter 7, "Approaches to the Design of Technology-Based Learning," pp. 153-179
The development of online courses. In T. Anderson. & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (Second Edition). Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/second_edition.html.
Don't take this the wrong way, I do understand that distance education students are and need to be "self directed" and I do believe that many courses are materials handed to students, and students decode what has been given to them; however, I think we need to make sure instructors guide discussions with (some room for non guided discussion), and not all non guided discussions. This may sound a little confusing and I hope this is not the case. It is important that there is someone that not only structures the course, but also guides the course (structured and not all flexible model).
The flexible approach has many benefits and I think the most important benefit is that it teaches the student to be more creative and autonomous in their own studies. However, I believe you can be an autonomous learner without having a free from structure course. The conclusion that I am drawing is that a healthy mix of flexible and structured learning is the most productive teaching model. One of the benefits of the flexible model is that it allows for more perspectives and a more in-depth conversation in the classroom. All in all, I do believe a professor or experienced instructor should head the class and guide the information flow in the direction in which was pre-set to the start of the course.
References
Bates & Poole, Chapter 7, "Approaches to the Design of Technology-Based Learning," pp. 153-179
The development of online courses. In T. Anderson. & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (Second Edition). Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/second_edition.html.
Standards of Online Education
One important quote from Caplan and Graham in the Development of Online Learning, "one way to address concerns about inferior pedagogy online is to dictate the same educational standards must apply to the development of instruction for the Internet," this statement will be the foundation of this blog (p. 251). Distance education courses have always had a perception from many people as being the easy way around a hard class. Obviously, this is an error in the notion. However, I often wonder why it came to be that online learning was thought to be easier? Many of us who take online courses, certainly, would not agree that online learning is easier. In fact, my opinion is that online courses require more participation and self direction.
Anyway, what Caplan and Graham are saying is the two types of pedagogy need to instill the same standards to keep the online education system on the same set of standards as the traditional education system. The goal of an educational institution is to ultimately educate the students on the educational pursuits that they so choose. However, with the institutionalization of online learning the institute needs to make sure that the online courses share the standards that are set forth for face-to-face institutions. This will in the end, eliminate the question of "inferiority" amongst the different methods of learning. I hope this all makes sense. Comments are welcome.
References
Caplan, D., & Graham, R. (2008). Technologies of Online Learning (E-learning). In T. Anderson. T. (Ed.), Theory and practice of online learning (Second Edition). (pp. 143-165). Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http://www.aupress.ca/books/Terry_Anderson/mcgreal.pdf
Anyway, what Caplan and Graham are saying is the two types of pedagogy need to instill the same standards to keep the online education system on the same set of standards as the traditional education system. The goal of an educational institution is to ultimately educate the students on the educational pursuits that they so choose. However, with the institutionalization of online learning the institute needs to make sure that the online courses share the standards that are set forth for face-to-face institutions. This will in the end, eliminate the question of "inferiority" amongst the different methods of learning. I hope this all makes sense. Comments are welcome.
References
Caplan, D., & Graham, R. (2008). Technologies of Online Learning (E-learning). In T. Anderson. T. (Ed.), Theory and practice of online learning (Second Edition). (pp. 143-165). Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http://www.aupress.ca/books/Terry_Anderson/mcgreal.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
