Organized by the Centre for Innovation and Excellence in Learning, this Show N Share session was an opportunity to showcase different ways of organizing courses in VIULearn (Brightspace). I was lucky enough to be invited to present!
Please check out the blog post and session recording from the Learning Design for Deep Learning blog here: https://wordpress.viu.ca/ciel/2020/11/12/taking-a-peek-how-do-other-instructors-design-their-viulearn-courses-ravi-mohabeer-and-stephanie-boychuk/.
The following letter was written as part of conversations about articulation of online and traditional labs in BC Adult Basic Education. I believe the resources discussed and listed below may be useful to others, and am sharing the letter in full.
Hello,
I wanted to address some points on the online labs versus traditional labs conversation. I think it is important to state first that I feel all laboratory experiences – whether online, traditional, or home kit/kitchen lab – have value for our students. Personally, I feel a mixture of different experiences is beneficial. However, as the conversation was focused on the value of online labs, that is what I have focused on for this email.
There were a few big themes our conversations settled on, and I wanted to share what I have found out regarding a few of them.
Admission Requirements and University Preparedness
One concern that came up a number of times was making sure our students can apply competitively for university programs. I have gone through the admission requirements for science programs at UBC, UVIC, SFU, and UNBC and found no evidence that modality of learning is considered when applying to these universities. UVIC, SFU, and UNBC have lists of “approved high school courses” on their sites, which also do not specify modality. When asked by phone, a UBC registration assistant specified that if the course was listed with the BC Ministry of Education then it was considered approved. Additionally, in our own Articulation Handbook, there is no specification of laboratory skills required for the recognition of the BC Adult Graduation Diploma from any of these institutions.
I could also find no evidence in these searches that specific lab skills were expected from students entering general science or chemistry courses, and specific lab skills are not specified in the BC Ministry of Education learning outcomes, or by the BC Adult Graduation Diploma Program.
Ability to Meet Learning Outcomes
There are, of course, many research-based studies and literature reviews looking at the efficacy of online laboratory activities versus traditional laboratory activities. It is also true that this branch of research is still developing. However, I would like to point to a few articles that have found equivalent learning outcome achievement can be attained in both online and traditional labs.
Faulconer et al. (2018) looked at 823 students in introductory chemistry and report no significant difference in pass rates between online and traditional courses. They did find a difference in the grade distributions for labs, where students in traditional labs tended to get more “D” grades then their counterparts in online labs, who tended to get more “A” grades.
Zendler & Greiner (2020) looked specifically at learning outcomes related to chemistry. They found that students who conducted online labs had equivalent or better achievement of learning outcomes compared to students who completed traditional labs with respect to specific learning outcomes.
Hawkins & Phelps (2013) also found no significant difference in learning electrochemical concepts between online and traditional labs. However, this study is particularly interesting in that they note traditional students had a knowledge gap regarding the placement of voltmeters when assessed, and the online group had a knowledge gap regarding placement of a salt bridge. The authors suggest that insufficient materials (traditional labs) and not including the salt bridge (online labs) as considerations that likely caused these gaps. In both cases the gaps could potentially be closed but they illustrate the importance of careful consideration of the experience over modality with regards to outcomes.
Irby et al. (2017), found that replacing some wet-lab chemical experiments with virtual experiences had no negative impact on student learning and increased dialogue between students with regards to the chemical triplet (macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic). Although the authors are not proponents of online-only lab courses, they did find value in the use of online laboratories for their students.
Brinson (2015) reviewed 56 articles comparing online labs and traditional labs. Overall findings include equivalent or better achievement of learning outcomes with online labs, based on data most often related to content knowledge.
Most studies will stress the design and time on activity are factors that must be considered when discussing achievement of learning outcomes. Intuitively, online labs tend to give students additional time to work through labs and can therefore lead to better outcomes for students, as time in specific physical spaces may be limited by a number of factors.
Access for Education and Employment
One of the four policy objectives of the Adult Education Policy Framework is that “[d]omestic students in Adult Education programs have the supports needed to progress and complete their studies and transition to post-secondary education or employment.” (British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training). Or, as stated by the British Columbia Federation of Students (BCFS), “To be effective, adult basic education must be accessible to all who need it” (2015 ABE Backgrounder).
It is difficult to find exact statistics, but we know that more then 20 000 students a year will enrol in public post-secondary institution’s ABE programs and that many of these students will be from marginalized groups, including 14% who will identify as Aboriginal (Adult Education Policy Framework and Student Enrollment Summary 2015). Our students are not traditional learners and are balancing work, family, school, and other commitments: 55% will be employed and 20% will be supporting a family while taking classes (2015 ABE Backgrounder).
The decisions we make about whether or not online labs should be articulated separately from face-to-face labs will affect the accessibility of our courses and programs for already marginalized students. As demonstrated in the previous section, online labs are a viable support to allow students to meet learning outcomes for ABE courses. Online labs allow students to complete some ABE courses fully-online from their home communities. This reduces barriers by removing additional pressures like the time and cost needed to physically come to campus. Additionally, students can access labs at times that work in their schedules.
The majority of our students will have already completed high school and are returning to ABE to pursue post-secondary education or employment (2015 ABE Backgrounder). If articulation of ABE courses including online labs was limited or changed, students may be delayed or be unable to pursue further education or employment. According to WorkBC, in the next ten years post-secondary education or training will be required for 77% of job openings. By creating barriers to ABE courses, we in turn create barriers to economic stability and future opportunities for our students.
If we decide that online labs cannot be used as a substitute when accessing traditional spaces is a barrier, we may exclude marginalized students from ABE science programs. Online labs can be an important support for many students allowing them to pursue post-secondary education and employment while balancing the commitments they have in their lives.
Precedent for Specifying Delivery Method
The BC Ministry of Education curricular overview specifically states “…the Ministry of Education defines the “what” to teach but not the “how to organize the time, space or methods to teach it” so modality is not a consideration of the BC Ministry of Education. Our own Articulation Handbook also does not specify teaching methods or modes at any point.
I worry that our articulation group choosing to begin specifying methods or modes of instruction sets a dangerous precedent. Although I recognize that currently we are only discussing the method of laboratory activities, this kind of precedent could be used to argue further specifications at a later time.
Specifying how instructors can “acceptably” teach their courses or labs implies ABE instructors are not capable of making informed, professional decisions about how best to teach their courses or support their learners. Privileging a specific instructional type also undermines the ability of ABE instructors to customize or personalize instruction for their location or student population.
Overall, given that major universities do not specify modality of learning for program entrance, research-based studies report no significant difference in outcomes, and access issues for students are a paramount concern; I feel that it is inappropriate to specify any lab experiences must have a face-to-face or traditional component to be fully articulated. I also feel that any attempt to specify delivery modality for courses or labs undermines the professional judgement of ABE instructors and limits their ability to be responsive to the needs of their student population.
Below you will find a listing of all links and articles referenced above, organized by section.
Respectfully,
Stephanie Boychuk
Instructor
Adult Basic Education
Vancouver Island University
Referenced Links and Articles
Admission Requirements and University Preparedness
British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training. Adult Basic Education: A Guide to Upgrading in British Columbia’s Public Post-Secondary Institutions: https://www.bctransferguide.ca/docs/ABE2020.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Education. Curriculum overview: https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/overview
British Columbia Ministry of Education. Explore Curriculum – Science: https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/science
Simon Fraser University. Admission requirements for Faculty of Science, Department of Chemistry: https://www.sfu.ca/students/admission/programs/a-z/c/chemistry.html
Simon Fraser University. Approved BC and Yukon High School Courses: http://www.sfu.ca/students/admission/admission-requirements/approved-courses.html
University of British Columbia. Admission requirements for Canadian high school students: https://you.ubc.ca/applying-ubc/requirements/canadian-high-schools#british-columbia
University of Northern British Columbia. Undergraduate Admission Requirements, Science: https://www.unbc.ca/apply/undergraduate/admission-requirements#science
University of Northern British Columbia. Approved Course List: https://www.unbc.ca/sites/default/files/sections/calendar/undergraduate/bchighschoolcoursesjan2020.pdf
University of Victoria. Admission requirements for Bachelor of Science, Chemistry: https://www.uvic.ca/undergraduate/programs/undergraduate-programs/pages/chemistry.php?residency=D&level=HS&school=HD&curriculum=BC
University of Victoria. Approved high school courses: BC and Yukon: https://www.uvic.ca/undergraduate/admissions/how-to-apply/approved-high-school-courses/bc-yukon/
Ability to Meet Learning Outcomes
Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003
Faulconer, E. K., Griffith, J. C., Wood, B. L., Acharyya, S., & Roberts, D. L. (2018). A comparison of online and traditional chemistry lecture and lab. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 392–397. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7rp00173h
Hawkins, I., & Phelps, A. J. (2013). Virtual laboratory vs. traditional laboratory: which is more effective for teaching electrochemistry? Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 14(4), 516–523. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2013/rp/c3rp00070b
Irby, S. M., Borda, E. J., & Haupt, J. (2017). Effects of Implementing a Hybrid Wet Lab and Online Module Lab Curriculum into a General Chemistry Course: Impacts on Student Performance and Engagement with the Chemistry Triplet. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(2), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00642
Zendler, A., & Greiner, H. (2020). The effect of two instructional methods on learning outcome in chemistry education: The experiment method and computer simulation. Education for Chemical Engineers, 30, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2019.09.001
Access for Education and Employment
British Columbia Federation of Students. 2015 ABE Backgrounder: http://www.wearebcstudents.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ABE-Factsheet-2015.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training. Adult Education Policy Framework, April 2018: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/post-secondary-education/adult-education/adult_education_policy_framework.pdf
British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training. Adult Basic Education (ABE)
Student Enrollment Summary 2015: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/post-secondary-education/adult-education/abe_leaners_bc_mar22_2016_final_for_2016_post.pdf
WorkBC. Good Jobs for Today & Tomorrow, February 2020: https://www.workbc.ca/getmedia/30a4a0d6-57bd-4047-8b8b-250c54b505c3/BC_Good_Jobs_For_Today_And_Tomorrow_2019.aspx
Precedent for Specifying Delivery Method
BC Ministry of Education. Curriculum overview: https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/overview
British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training. Adult Basic Education: A Guide to Upgrading in British Columbia’s Public Post-Secondary Institutions: https://www.bctransferguide.ca/docs/ABE2020.pdf
For the original activity please see Chi Klein’s post here: http://hybridteareflections.tumblr.com/post/73374338866/trouble-with-lagging-strands
I enjoy the “invisible” parts of Biology – the enzyme cascades and processes that underpin many of the macroscopic changes we can observe. It is maybe for this reason that I was originally drawn to molecular biology, and why the Cell Cycle and Genetics pieces of Biology 067 are my favorites.
The challenge, of course, is that these processes are invisible and happen on time scales that we cannot observe as a class. So, when I started planning my lesson on DNA Replication I really wanted something to help make it “real” and visible.
I found the “Trouble with “Lagging Strands”” Activity (linked above) and immediately felt a resonance with the goals I had in mind. Although this activity does contain some additional details my students did not need to know, I thought it would be relatively easy to adapt and provide a good summary activity for my students.
Iteration #1
The first thing I did was to create a summary sheet for my students: DNA Replication Summary Handout. I wanted to make sure they had some kind of take-away from the activity so they knew what parts were important. We started this concept as part of our online day – students should have watched a detailed video about DNA structure and replication (DNA Structure and Replication: Crash Course Biology #10 from CrashCourse) followed by a few review multiple choice questions using the TED ED Lesson Creator. In class the following day, we watched a shorter animation of the processes (DNA replication – 3D from yourgenome) and jumped right into the activity.
I walked the students through the steps, and asked them to follow along the process a second time together. This immediately drew the attention to me as the person who controls the process, and the second walk through of the process fell very flat. The students struggled to fill in their worksheets, and after reviewing them turned into a lecture. Although some students did say they enjoyed getting to “walk through” the process, I felt like the activity wasn’t utilized to its full potential.
Iteration #2
For this iteration I kept the same summary sheets I had created the first time. Unlike the last time, the students did not get exposed to this information in the online day, due in large part to scheduling. We began this lesson with a review of DNA structure and the cell cycle (which they had learned previous days). After that, we watched the same short animation as the first iteration. This time I directed students to pay attention to steps in the process and not worry about the names of each enzyme yet.
After the video, we did a short lecture on DNA replication, referencing the video to remind us of the visuals and giving attention to the important enzyme names. After that, we launched into the activity to “Try it!” (inspired by Bill Nye the Science Guy).
For this iteration I set the ground rules (which parts of the foot were 5′ and 3′, where the nucleotides were). After that, I asked for help remembering all the parts we needed folks to play. Some students would call out an enzyme, and then encourage someone to volunteer to be that enzyme. I kept asking “do we have everyone we need?” until students confidently answered “yes”.
After that, I used a series of questions to get students who did not volunteer to be enzymes to direct those who did on the correct steps to follow. This way each step was a group decision, and there was less pressure on the volunteers when something seemed “off”. We had a great learning moment when a student playing DNA Polymerase laying down paper nucleotides said aloud “Oh wait, that should be a “T” not an “A”.” I paused the activity and we discussed together how the student had illustrated a key job of DNA Polymerase and why certain bases join to others.
This version took longer (20 minutes compared to 10), but the students seemed to retain the details much better. They were able to collaborative fill out their summary charts with very little help and reviewing it was much quicker. The students reviewed this information in the next online day.
Final Thoughts
In hindsight, it is clear the first iteration was too teacher-driven and didn’t require the students to engage with the process enough. The second iteration gave students more agency, although we had a few uncomfortable moments where students were silent and waiting for direction.
These iterations were a good example of how letting go of some control lead to a better experience for students. I have thought back on this activity often when playing other activities or trying to find new ones. I try to ask myself “How much direction do the students really need?” and keep it to a minimum. I also write myself notes (along with facilitation notes and timing suggestions) to remind myself to ask more questions instead of answering right away. Often the other students can help put together a better understanding together then if I had simply provided an answer they did not feel the need to question.
Who: Offered by BC Campus and facilitated by Nancy White
When: February 22 and 23 2017
What:
Liberating structures (http://www.liberatingstructures.com/) are a series of practical facilitation strategies that can be used to break down the the traditional power structures in meetings, workshops and other interactions. These structures include everyone and help create an atmosphere that engages more people and brings a greater variety of perspectives into conversations.
Although the Liberating Structures website contains all the information you need to apply these structures to your classroom, workshop or meeting, this workshop provided an opportunity to use about half the structures as a participant.
As a participant, I really appreciated getting a chance to engage with a variety of different people in different roles through the use of Liberating Structures. This gave me a “feel” for what structures are a bit more difficult to use, and which felt more natural from a participants’ perspective. I also appreciated that all the facilitators made their thinking about how they introduced and applied the structures clear, which helped to frame how these structures could be applied in a practice sense.
The structures we experienced at the workshop were:
Science! by Andrew Huff. CC BY-NC 2.0.
Virtual labs were a hard sell for me. I’ve always been a hands-on person – from my technical position to my fiber art hobbies – I like manipulating the world around me and seeing what it does. High school labs were the reason I was originally drawn to Science, and a big reason I chose to do my B.Sc. If it hadn’t been for the move to Nanaimo, I would have kept my job as a laboratory technician and continued to work in research Science.
When starting this seminar my idea of a virtual lab was limited in scope. Although I have trolled through the internet looking for some virtual labs, I hadn’t been able to find anything really good (I realize now that was probably in part due to poor choice of key words in searches). A lot of the virtual labs confirmed my worst fears – “virtual lab” either meant a lot of reading and some quizzes, or it meant a series of clicks while watching pre-set animations play. There was nothing inspiring about virtual labs – it would be better to film an instructor doing a demo.
After this seminar I realize there really is some good stuff out there, and more of it is available without a major capital investment then I appreciated. I really saw the power some of the simulations had to allow student to manipulate the virtual world, and to think, questions and “do” outside of the pre-set animation box.
Before this seminar I knew that virtual labs would be able to accomplish teaching the “what” of Science education – the content. Now, I see that the right virtual lab can also accomplish the “how” of Science education – thinking and acting as a scientist. I know, and can clearly see from our wiki review, that not all virtual labs are created equally. There are some virtual labs that knocked my socks off, but there were a few that I really didn’t like.
The final piece about virtual labs that I’m still not sure about is the lack of interaction between students in the virtual space. Charlene Stewart discussed this point in her blog post, Teaching Science the Virtual Way. Throughout the OLTD program I have really realized the importance of having a course community, and right now I see virtual labs as being very isolated. Given that there is more emphasis on collaborative learning, there needs to be some attention paid to how to build collaborative virtual experiments in the online environment.
This seminar really helped me “turn a corner” on virtual labs. Although they are still more individual activities, and care must be taken when selecting them, some virtual labs allow students to behave as if they are in a real laboratory space and drive their own learning, which is very powerful.
The “Disruptive Innovation in Blended Learning” seminar came at a very interesting time in my department. My colleague and I are writing a proposal for a conference presentation later in the summer, which will focus on how the Centre has (mostly) kept pace with the updates to our current LMS (Brightspace by D2L) and how we handled the change from version 10.2 to 10.4 last summer. The beginning of our talk gives some statistics on our university – pointing out we are small enough to be able to be agile and responsive to change, unlike the bigger universities in the US. The bigger universities have to have much more complicated change management procedures in place to keep pace with technological change.
Compared to the pace of change possible in a K-12 school, however, we are moving at a glacial. Many of the schools featured in our readings made big changes quickly and shifted practice within a couple of years to something completely different. I know there are a lot of factors at play, including size of staff and student population, but the excitement generated by these radical shifts and strong results is hard to resist!
In my specific context, I am in the unique and terrifying position of supporting online learning for many instructors, and that can involve some serious pedagogical questions. It is easy to say “this is how I would do it” but a lot more difficult to give information and let someone decide what will work for themselves and their students. Additionally, I don’t have a lot of opportunity to try these models out for myself so recommending something is difficult.
I have helped to build online training courses, but never a blended one (although, hopefully there will be one in the next year). Given that my audience will likely be adults, perhaps teaching faculty, I would likely follow a flex-type model. I think this approach allows enough flexibility in scheduling, while still allowing for direct group instruction when needed. In the case of working with teaching faculty, group instruction would more like a group conversation or jigsaw, as opposed to “direct instruction”.
I think many of the “fully online” courses I have built were intended to be enriched virtual courses – instructors or students complete what they can alone, and come to our Centre for support (phone, email or face-to-face) when they need additional support. Many faculty would prefer direct 1:1 support over group courses or workshops, so this seems like a model that we might push toward more. It is difficult to support the range of skill levels we do, especially when people who are just starting to use the LMS generally require at least an hour or two of direct orientation to the system. I think that if we could really leverage the enriched virtual courses that are already built we could reach more people more effectively.
My struggle with enriched virtual is that it is difficult to know if and when you should approach someone and ask if they need help. The courses I have facilitated have been entirely optional, so there is a fine line between helping and intruding. It might be interesting to blend an enriched virtual model with an optional “flipped” style stream – having a set “coming together” time to air grievances and talk about issues and successes with using the system. I think it is really important to make sure faculty get a chance to talk together and build their own support networks, because otherwise it is difficult for someone in my position to move away from being a “sage on the stage” when it comes to working within an LMS.
Although radical change may not be possible university-wide, I think there are opportunities to shift how my department handles support and training for the better. I’m not sure how happy our clientele would be if we changed overnight, but I really think to serve them best we have to start making small, meaningful changes.
For the first major project of OLTD 507, I created an excel based tool for assessing web 2.0 tools. If you want to take a look at my template and a selection of tools I assessed, just click this link:
Blank Template and Survey of Cloud Tools 
I’ve taken a page from my previous OLTD courses, and have given this tool a creative commons license. I’m sure someone could take this idea and make it so much better, and I want them to share alike when they do!
My tool focuses first on the three universal design for learning (UDL) principles, giving some guiding questions for teachers to use to rate the tool. Then, my tool has a series of questions to assess the ease of use of the tool. Finally, there are a series of guiding questions around privacy concerns for a tool, and a prompt to consider alternatives. My tool will allow teachers to answer the guiding questions using numbers (with being 0 strongly disagree to 3 being strongly agree), and will automatically give the tool a percentage rating in each segment of the assessment, as well as an overall rating.
My goal is not for the percentages ratings to lead teachers away from a tool, but to make it easier to see where more investigation may be needed, or where trying to use the tool may require careful lesson design.
Based on my survey of a few different cloud tools, I have chosen my top 3 tools for teachers and for students. I’ve created a summary of those tools using another cloud tool called MindMeister, a mind mapping tool. Click the image below to check out the mindmap online:
You should be able to zoom in and out of areas you are interested in, or run through the pieces as “slides” as I have set up “presentation view” as well.
Of course, nothing is created in a vacuum, so I have added a list of references to a separate sheet in the excel tool (linked above), and to the bottom of this post.
References
bbovard. (2011, April 7). Web 2.0 selection criteria: Save time choosing an appropriate tool. Retrieved from: http://olc.onlinelearningconsortium.org/Web_2.0_Selection_Criteria_Save_Time_Choosing_an_Appropriate_Tool
CAST. (2011). UDL guidelines – version 2.0: Principle I. Provide multiple means of representation. Retrieved from: http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines/principle1
CAST. (2011). UDL guidelines – version 2.0: Principle II. Provide multiple means of action and expression. Retrieved from: http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines/principle2
CAST. (2011). UDL guidelines – version 2.0: Principle III. Provide multiple means of engagement. Retrieved from: http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines/principle3
Hengstler, J. (2014). Social media technology use: Planning & tool risk assessment worksheet. [Microsoft Word Document]. Retrieved from: https://d2l.viu.ca/content/enforced/56545-EDUC_OLTD506_W70_F2014/tool_risk_assessment_worksheet.docx?_&d2lSessionVal=dlegyWag5rPZkj2KPKTBwTKle&ou=56545
Hodges, C. (2011, November 2). Evaluating Web 2.0 Tools for Education.[Slideshare Presentation]. Retrieved from: http://www.slideshare.net/hodgesc/evaluating-web-20-tools-for-education
lctaylor. (n.d.). iRubric: Evaluation of web 2.0 tools rubric. Retrieved from: https://www.rcampus.com/rubricshowc.cfm?sp=yes&code=N5XA4A&
The software as a service (SaaS) and cloud models of educational tool deployment provide opportunities to harness a wide variety of applications in a cost-effective and more readily accessible way (Cruz, 2011). The availability of cloud-based tools has also changed how post-secondary education (PSE) approaches adoption and management of learning management systems (LMSs), leading to a shift in how modern and emerging LMSs support student learning (Lang & Pirani, 2004; Pugliese, 2012).
In their report, Lang and Pirani (2014) state that students want an LMS that is better utilized by instructors for not only content but also communication. Pugliese discusses the next generation LMS as one that integrates the best of cloud technologies to enhance social aspects of learning while giving students the ability to engage with material in the ways that best suit them.
Cloud tools allow educators to build a LMS system of their own, or personalize an existing LMS to their particular course or students. There are many different cloud tools available for instructors to use, so one of the major stumbling blocks to cloud tool adoption is the time and expertise needed to investigate, vet and prepare lessons using these tools. Another issue for many educators is ensuring their use of cloud tools follows the privacy guidelines that govern their workplace, in British Columbia either FIPPA or PIPPA. Finally, although many student have experience using various cloud-based tools, instructors still need to allow time for students to learn how to use the tool in an educational context and how the use the tool safely.
I feel that biggest advantage cloud tools have over the traditional LMS is the ability to have persons outside of the traditional classroom engage with students. Instructors can use social media tools like Twitter (https://twitter.com/?lang=en) to engage members of the community or experts in a field of interest, or allow students to connect with persons of interest themselves. Other tools like Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/) or Google+ (https://plus.google.com/) can be used to build communities around certain areas of interest, or to engage with other students outside of the classroom’s geographic barriers.
Many cloud tools allow for greater collaboration between students, as well as between instructors and students. Perhaps the most well know example of a collaborative cloud tool is Google Docs (https://docs.google.com/), which allows students and/or instructors to collaborate in real time on documents, spreadsheets or presentations. Collaborative artifact creation can also be achieved using tools such as Wikispaces (https://www.wikispaces.com/), which have the added advantage of being visible and sharable with a greater web community. Real-time communication and collaboration can be facilitated using Skype (http://www.skype.com/en/) or Blackboard Collaborate (http://www.blackboard.com/platforms/collaborate/products/blackboard-collaborate.aspx). With reference to the Community of Inquiry framework (COI), these tools can help to increase the social and teaching presence of the course by increasing discourse and allowing students to develop a community from which they can construct their knowledge (Garrison & Arbaugh, 2007).
Assessment in an online classroom can be challenging, but there are many different cloud tools to support assessment for and of learning. Both Google Docs and Wikispaces (above) can be used for formative and summative assessment. There are a plethora of cloud-based quizzing tools, such as Socrative (http://www.socrative.com/), which are flexible enough to be used for multiple forms of assessment as well. Electronic portfolios (e-portfolios) can be used to allow students to personalize the evidence of their learning. E-portfolio cloud tools include website building tools like WordPress (https://wordpress.com/) or Wix (http://www.wix.com/), as well as some e-portfolio specific tools like Mahara (https://mahara.org/).
When teaching online it is important to keep the content organized for students. Edmodo (https://www.edmodo.com/) and Live Binders (http://www.livebinders.com/welcome/home) seem to be strong tools for content organization, but with the release of Google Classroom (https://classroom.google.com/) the landscape of cloud-based course tools will likely be shifting quickly. Within all of these tools, it is possible to build scaffolded, inquiry-based projects, by providing materials as well as a space for students to report, share and collaborate on projects. If these tools are used in concert with social media, collaborative and assessment tools, they can provide a rich online environment for students to construct their knowledge.
Using cloud tools in conjunction with, or as a replacement of, and LMS can create a much richer online experience for students, but care must be taken when selecting tools so they are used in pedagogically sound and developmentally appropriate ways. Using cloud tools to personalize the online educational experience also supports learners of all abilities and helps students to develop essential digital literacies and ICT skills.
References:
Cruz, L. (2011). How cloud computing is revolutionizing education. Retrieved from: http://newsroom.cisco.com/feature/460910/How-Cloud-Computing-is-Revolutionizing-Education
Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 157-172. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.04.001
Lang, L., & Pirani, J. A. (2014). The learning management system evolution. Retrieved from: https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB1405.pdf
Pugliese, L. (2012, January 23). A post-LMS world. [Article]. Retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/post-lms-world
Wicks, D. (2012, August 2012). Can using a tool like Goolge+ lead to the death of the LMS? [Blog Post]. Retrieved from: http://davidwicks.org/iste-2-design-and-develop-digital-age-learning-experiences-and-assessments/can-using-a-tool-like-google-lead-to-the-death-of-the-lms/
I have had the opportunity to take coursework specifically examining the sociology of education and the assumptions educators may have. That course looked critically at the politics of teaching and has stayed with me over the years. My research for that course focused on ability grouping, students with disabilities and socio-economic status (SES) effects; though I would not claim to have a deep knowledge of those subjects.
When we accept that teaching is political by nature and begin to examine privilege and the hidden curriculum, the digital divide should come as no surprise. Consistently disadvantaged groups, like low SES students, will continue to face barriers to technology use (Hicks & Turner, 2013). I also believe using connectivity as a measure of the digital divide does not recognize the complex relationships learners, educators and communities have with technology utilization (Digital divide, n.d.; J. Hengstler, personal communication, September 18, 2014).
1990 Computer Lab Sign by JD Hancock. Retrieved from https://flic.kr/p/68UvgF. CC BY 2.0.
I have had the opportunity to work with students who are taking blended or online courses for the first time, many of whom are nervous about their lack of comfort using technology. Occasionally my department will help walk a student through copying and pasting from a word processing program to another document, or give one-on-one tailored orientations to the learning management system. It is for those reasons I realize that connectivity is one thing, but effective use is completely different. I also realize for the handful of students we see, there are many, many others we do not see who need support using technology.
I believe that the digital divide in the context of Aboriginal perspectives and Indigenous ways of knowing is particularly challenging. I would not want to embark on a social media project with Aboriginal students without first seeking support from someone with a greater understanding of the culture and language, in order to be as respectful as possible to their context.
References
Digital divide. (n.d.). Retrieved September 16, 2014 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide
Hicks, T., & Turner, K. H. (2013). No longer a luxury: Digital literacy can’t wait. English Journal, 102(6). Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/EJ/1026-jul2013/EJ1026Longer.pdf
Whomever coined the phrase “ignorance is bliss” has not yet read Hengstler (2014) where the author lays out a continuum of FIPPA compliance BC educators can fall under. Ignorance can be very damaging, especially when the privacy of students is in question.
“Ignorance is a choice Tony…no really it is…” by Jonathan Kellenberg. Retrieved from https://flic.kr/p/AVD1. CC BY 2.0. Adapted by Stephanie Boychuk.
The readings for this topic widened my view of what “damaging” could mean in relation to student privacy as well. For example, although I had considered risks associated with identifiability and data storage, I had not really considered the students’ copyright to their work being breached through online posting (Hengstler, 2013). When I post my own work, I usually take the time to add a creative commons license (if appropriate) but am now considering what would be the best course of action for students. In my context, working with faculty who teach adult learners, it would be the students’ choice to apply a licence or not – but they would need to be educated on what their intellectual property rights were and what it would mean to apply a different license to their work.
I also feel the having a specific, drawn out plan to handle potential incidents that occur is necessary, but is also something I had not thought of before (Hengstler, 2013). Even relatively isolated uses of social media – a faculty member using a Google Doc for a formative wiki project for instance – it would be prudent to lay out solutions to potential issues. I believe this is something that could be useful for the entire campus community, and perhaps increase the awareness of and comfort in using these tools.
References
Hengstler, J. (2013). A K-12 primer for British Columbia teachers posting students’ work online. Retrieved from http://jhengstler.wordpress.com/2013/05/17/a-k-12-primer-for-british-columbia-teachers-posting-students-work-online/
Hengstler, J. (2014). The compliance continuum: FIPPA & BC educators. Retrieved from http://jhengstler.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/the-compliance-continuum-fippa-bc-public-educators/