A few years back we invested in the streaming video service – Films on Demand. The service integrates with our campus portal and the Lakeland Library to permit faculty the means of integrating educational video into their course materials. Compared with the former system of ordering individual media (VHS, DVD), this has proved to be a very good investment. Nevertheless, the level of adoption has been less than expected.
In our recent survey of online learners, students reported that they would like to have more video content in their online courses. Streaming video is becoming an extremely popular way for students to view content as is evidenced by the rate of adoption of such services as iTunes U and Khan Academy.
“Eight in ten (83%) college students regularly use a smartphone, up significantly from 72% in 2013. Smartphones are now close to laptops (89%) as the mobile device students are most likely to use on a regular basis.”
Perhaps the increased use of smartphones by students helps to explain the demand for more video content. Although I enjoy reading journal articles and other text-based material on my iPad because of the size and orientation, I am not a big fan of reading text on my iPhone. That being said, the iPhone works great with streaming video – especially with WiFi available both at work and home.
Films on Demand is available to both faculty and students and although we have promoted its use primarily with the faculty – demonstrating how to search for relevant content from among the more than 15,000 titles and 200,000 plus segments – students also may access these materials and find value in searching through the collections themselves.
Much of what was learned through the research reaffirms what we have shared here before – that there exists a positive correlation between student-to-instructor interactivity and student success.
What the study did not reveal was a correlation between student success and online course design, or for that matter, between student success and the alignment of learning objectives and assessment. That isn’t to say these aren’t essential considerations when designing the online course – they are. But rather, that the study did not provide evidence that these factors are directly related to student achievement.
Another interesting finding was that although student-to-instructor interactions showed a positive correlation to student outcomes, this was not necessarily the case with student-to-student interactions. In fact, students indicated their experience with online discussion and group projects was, to paraphrase, pretty much a time sink.
Initially, the findings appeared to support a relationship between the effective use of technology and course grades, but after controlling for student characteristics the relationship became less apparent. Most quality assurance rubrics and accepted practices in online delivery suggest that educational technologies need to be current or state-of-the-art. However, this study suggests when designing rubrics for online course design…
“…quality ratings for technology may wish to focus on not just the use of “current” technologies but how these technologies are used to support user interaction, confidence, motivation, and learning.”
It occurs to me that interaction, confidence, motivation and learning can all be supported by the introduction of games or gamification in learning design.
The use of games in education has gained momentum in recent years. Games can be very motivating (perhaps even addicting). In a game we interact with the medium, often are given problems to solve or challenges to overcome, make choices, and as we progress in skill we become more confident.
Tools like Respondus StudyMate and Quia can be used to turn objective type quizzes into word games: (matching, hangman, crossword, fill in the blank). This is especially helpful when learning new terminology. After integrating games into her Medical Terminology course a couple of years ago an instructor reported significant improvement in student test scores as students began to spend hours reviewing the content as they played games and tried to improve their scores.
The learning is not necessarily the learner’s primary goal when playing a game, but rather accomplishing a task, mastering a certain level, gaining points or credits, and ultimately to win. Of course learning happens as an outcome in the process. Games are by definition, competitive – we may compete against the computer, chance, ourselves, or others (bringing us back to the earlier discussion about student-to-student interactions).
According to Karl Kapp, “Gamification is using game-based mechanics, aesthetics, and game thinking to engage people, motivate action, promote learning, and solve problems.”
“Through the careful application of game elements—such as the freedom to fail, interest curve, storytelling, and feedback—in learning programs, ordinary content can be made more engaging without the development of a full-fledged learning game.” – Karl Kapp
By looking for ways to implement game elements into our courses we may be able to repond to the several questions brought up in the study, including student to student interactions, and effective use of technology (student to content interactions).
Although use of social media has increased for both students and teachers their preference is for personal rather than for educational purposes.
The Social Media for Teaching and Learning report by Pearson & Babson finds faculty use of social media has increased in all areas: personal, professional, and educational. However, most faculty still have some strong reservations when it comes to use in the classroom. Although it appears that both faculty and students see the value of integrating mobile technologies into teaching and learning, both groups are concerned with privacy and prefer to keep their personal separate from their academic lives.
“Concerns about privacy, both for themselves and for their students, and about maintaining the class as a private space for free and open discussion, have been at the top of the list of concerns in all of the reports. Until faculty feel that this issue has been addressed, the wide-scale adoption of commercial social media tools in the classroom will remain limited.”
– Pearson: Social Media for Teaching & Learning
The very nature of Social media is highly interactive and therefore engaging – permitting us to share our stuff – news articles, blogs, videos, photos, etc. – with our connections in practically real-time.
The advantage of social media over LMS tools like the discussion forum is the convenience of sharing directly from the media to our connections – like the difference between email and texting.
“This is cool! I’ll share it. There – I shared it!” …five people liking it and three comments later and we’re engaged in a conversation.
So how do we get around this privacy thing?
The critical thing about social media when it comes to privacy is the social network. Some social networks can be made either open or closed, public or private. For example some Google Plus Communities are made available for anyone to join while others are by permission only.
Our campus uses Gmail for student email, so virtually every student has a Google Plus account whether they know it or not. They just need activate it. As an instructor I can create a private community in Google Plus for my course, email the students in my class and invite them to join. Content shared within a private Google Plus community is visible only to those who are members of the community.
There – we have a private social network. Now what?
The latest ECAR study on undergraduate students and information technology shows that students are willing to use their mobile technologies for educational purposes, they just need some instruction on how to do so.
Students need to know how to manage their networks or “circles” in Google Plus and then how to like (+1) and to share media when they find it. As the community owners, we need to set some guidelines for our community so students know what is appropriate to share and how to engage in the conversation. We also need to show them the mechanics of the tools.
Categories can be created within the community. By using hashtags (e.g. #edtech) when sharing or posting media, the content and discussions can be organized into various topics and forums. This works great for managing small group discussion and assignments or for topically organizing the media and other content.
Students can share various media (location, photos, video) directly from their phones, tablets, or computers. Hangouts (live chat and video) permit up to ten students to interact remotely in real-time with desktop sharing, audio and video. This is especially helpful with collaboration in small study groups.
The Hangouts on Air feature permits the instructor or guest speakers to join the class from a distance and to stream, as well as record lectures, which are then automatically posted to the community timeline.
The private community is not limited to the classroom but permits the instructor to decide who can join the community. By expanding the network students from multiple sections, upper-classmates, alumni, and experts in the field can engage in classroom discussions.
Google Plus communities permit the faculty and students to share documents, spreadsheets, presentations, etc. anything stored in Google Drive – permitting students to collaborate in the development of class projects or share their portfolios.
Does social media belong in the classroom? I would say yes, depending on what you hope to achieve. There are many ways of engaging students by extending the classroom using social media if you are willing to invest a little time and effort to set up a private network.
Apparently, the concern had to do with the ability to manage small group discussions using Google Docs, but there were problems.
“If we tell people to just do safe things, we’ll stifle innovation.”
– Richard DeMillo, Georgia Tech
I couldn’t agree more.
Innovation means trying things out – oftentimes for the very first time – and that can be risky business.
In our efforts to foster innovation and experimentation we need to recognize that failure is part of the process. We make a first attempt, when something unexpected occurs we try something else – and then we ask, what was the difference? Did we get what we expected? We try again – did we get the same or new results?
There will be those going forward who will likely not give MOOCs a try, pointing to this attempt that “didn’t work”. But the fact is, it did work. It worked by failing, and now we learn from it asking what happened, and trying something else. Hopefully the next time it will work better.
Its just a bigger deal when 41,000+ people are looking than when you can’t get the damn projector switched from the laptop to the document camera on the first day of class.
I recently took an online statistical analysis course. Most people when I tell them that, respond with “why?”. In hindsight I must ask myself the same thing, but that’s beside the point.
One thing I really liked about the course was the instructor offered students a weekly live web-conferencing session to review the assignments. “Attendance” (logging in to the live session) was optional, which was a good thing since it was scheduled at a time that was not convenient for me to attend. However, the sessions were recorded and posted for review for those who were unable to attend. These recorded sessions were a life saver.
Although it wasn’t a true example of a Hyflex course, it did include a common feature of the Hyflex format – the option to attend class either synchronously or asynchronously depending on the student’s personal preference or schedule.
The impetus for increasing enrollments in distance education, whether online or blended, mostly has to do with maximum flexibility and convenience in regards to time and place. The Hyflex course is no exception. In fact, Hyflex may be one of the most flexible delivery models to emerge in higher education.
So, what exactly is Hyflex?
Hyflex learning permits students to choose their preference in where and when they participate or access course instructional time.
“HyFlex is a course design model that presents the components of hybrid learning in a flexible course structure that gives students the option of attending sessions in the classroom, participating online, or doing both. Students can change their mode of attendance weekly or by topic, according to need or preference…” – Educause: Seven things you should know about the Hyflex course model.
Some students come to class physically or virtually, synchronously or asynchronously. A common design (e.g. OSU’s Hyflex Model) is to offer students the option of deciding which of these modalities they intend to participate it on a weekly basis. Students, regardless of the modality they select, need to be engaged in substantive student-to-instructor, student-to-student, and student-to-content course interactivity.
“…the HyFlex instructor is newly challenged to make sure all of her students are engaged in interactive, generative learning activities no matter which participation mode they choose.” –Dr. Brian Beatty, Associate VPAA at San Francisco State University
Certainly design and delivery are fundamental to a quality educational experience for students, but campuses considering the Hyflex option will also need to assess the logistics of course sections, teaching load, technical support for faculty and students before embarking in this highly flexible emerging learning format.
Despite appearances, we are not born knowing how to use technologies. As with learning to drive a car we need a little help with understanding how it works, a chance to try it out for ourselves, and some experience driving before we can master the process.
“It is a common fallacy to suppose that because students are growing up in a technological age they are somehow instinctively capable of using technology to learn what is expected of them in school.”
Davies instead offers a framework for technology literacy that includes three levels: Awareness, Praxis, and Phronesis. Although the article refers to students learning and using technology for their studies, I think the premise offers an excellent framework for supporting faculty in the use of technology for teaching and learning, for both the physical and virtual classroom.
At the awareness level, learners are first exposed to the technology – what it is and what it does.
When practical it is best to introduce new technologies by demonstrating them in authentic situations. Rather than invite people to a session about a new document camera, invite them to a session using the document camera as the vehicle to deliver the presentation, then upload and share the recording with them via YouTube. If done well learners will ask questions about the technologies – Hey, how did you do that? What did you use? Can it do this?
These kinds of questions lead to the next level of technology literacy – Praxis (practical application). At the praxis level we learn about the technology itself – not only what it can do, but how to go about it. The training at this level focuses on the technology: how to access, navigate, the functionality, and troubleshooting. These sessions can be offered by instructional technologists in one-on-one session, or to small groups in a lab or classroom. The key feature of this level is that learners have an opportunity to try the technology out for themselves.
The third level – Phronesis is the mastery level (phronesis – competence or wisdom). Ideally the learner shares what they have discovered by using the technology in their own classroom. The things the technology allows them to do more easily, or effectively, or perhaps things they can now do that they could not do before they acquired the technology. Some trial and error is required in order to attain mastery. Until we get practical with the application of technology we are still dealing with the theoretical.
One of the greatest challenges in the integration or adoption of learning technologies at the institutional level is getting everyone to the same place at the same time. This tri-level framework – awareness/praxis/phronesis – may offer a means for us to get most people to the same place over time. First instructors are introduced to the technology (awareness level), then taught how to use it (praxis level), followed by the opportunity to experiment in their classrooms (phronesis level) and then re-cycle the process by sharing what they have learned with their colleagues (revisiting awareness).
Perhaps the greatest challenge to the adoption of new technologies for teaching and learning is the opportunity for educators to envision how a given technology can be applied to their own instructional practice. The classroom, whether on-campus or virtual, can be a wonderful place for innovation and exploration but we need to look over a few shoulders and to share what we learn.
I ran across this e-book on Educause… Thanks to University of Minnesota, here are fifty plus case studies where instructors share what they have discovered using technology in innovative ways within their own classrooms.