Reflections on Distributed and Open Learning

Welcome to my student blog, “Reflections on Distributed and Open Learning.” The purpose of this blog is to document and share my learning in EDCI 339. Navigation to my portfolio is available in the menu to the left, but you can also access the contents of my portfolio through this post. You can also view all my individual blog posts by following the links below. Thank you for taking the time to view my reflections and evidence of learning. I hope my blog can contribute to the discourse on distributed and open learning in a meaningful and positive way.

Portfolio

1. Revised Blog Post
2. Pod Project
3. Final Reflection

Individual Blog Posts

1. Individual Post #1
2. Individual Post #2
3. Individual Post #3
4. Individual Post #4

This week’s exploration in open education included participation in a Twitterchat hosted by the instructors of EDCI 339. Originally, I had planned to simply observe but after remembering that I had an old inactive Twitter account from 2011, I did join in and participate in some of the questions posted. Twitter is a platform that has become part of our cultural lexicon, but it is not something that I have really openly engaged with before. I have tried several times to engage with Twitter as a platform in the past. I signed up for an account with Twitter back when it was at the height of its popularity. I didn’t “get” it then, and to be honest, I don’t fully “get” it now, but I am starting to understand how it can be used in open learning. I think to get the most out of a platform like Twitter, you need to be part of a sphere of influence that really engages in it. I like to have privacy online and the social media that I prefer to engage with either allows me to limit who views my posts or allows for complete anonymity. For me, Twitter just feels too public, too time consuming, and too overwhelming to enjoy engaging with it. That said, I do understand the potential Twitter has as a tool for open learning.

Twitter is used as an open platform for sharing information. Conversations can be had on Twitter, but the 280-character maximum really limits what can be shared. In academic and professional circles, links to scholarly articles, online resources, or videos seem to be commonly shared on Twitter. The voices that are amplified on Twitter are the ones that have the most followers. A quick Google search of the most followed Twitter accounts will reveal that the platform is dominated by entertainment moguls and political figures and it is those voices that have the strongest influence on Twitter. However, it is possible to search for keywords that fit your interest. Searching for #edci339, for example, allowed me to connect to the course Twitterchat. A quick search of some other key words that interest me, such as #openlearning, #distributedlearning, #education, and #teachers, revealed a list of many posts matching my hashtag search terms. I can definitely see the appeal of following or searching for accounts that fit your interests or your area of study as a way of staying up to date with the latest research or discourse. I could see Twitter being a very useful platform to turn to as a starting point for finding research on a particular topic. Another benefit of Twitter is being able to follow accounts and reply to Tweets, so it is possible to ask questions, share ideas, or start a discourse with anyone that has a Twitter account. This means that a student could read a journal article posted by the author and be able to comment or ask questions directly to the author. In an open learning environment, learners can connect with each other on Twitter and create a feed of their learning by using the same hashtag handle.

While Twitter is still decidedly not for me, this experience did allow me to consider the educational applications for Twitter and the potential to share information in an open environment. I think that Twitter is a useful open learning tool that can be used to connect students to real-time conversations on their topic of interest for those that consent and are not concerned about their online privacy.

The readings this week really made me aware of the benefits and possibilities of open learning and open educational resources (OERs). I also put a lot of thought into student created resources, which are part of the open learning pedagogy. My biggest take-away from the readings this week was exploring the pros and cons of open learning and student created resources. Mays (2017) makes a compelling argument for OERs. OERs allow students to access information that was previously only available in “high-priced commercial textbooks” (David Wiley cited in Mays, 2017). Furthermore, an open license allows students and teachers “to contribute to the knowledge commons, not just consume from it, in meaningful and lasting ways” (David Wiley cited in Mays, 2017). Making information and resources more accessible takes away many of the barriers that prevent people from accessing higher learning. Open educational resources directly impact a “student’s ability to enroll in, persist through, and successfully complete a course” (Mays, 2017). The importance of collaboration and student-to-student interactions are also well-known for their effectiveness in learning.

An open model of learning is also a great way to fight the examples of digital redlining that were presented by Gilliard and Culik (2016). Gilliard and Culick (2016) give several accounts of students that were prevented from viewing particular journals because their particular community college did not pay for full service to the scholarly catalogue. There are also instances where campus internet may be filtered to reflect a particular moral stance that prevents students from accessing certain types of information (Gillard & Culick, 2016). Open learning largely prevents this type of digital redlining because educational resources are not kept behind a paywall which promotes better equity in learning.

I appreciate that Mays (2017) challenges readers to ask critical questions about open learning and to “pay special attention to the barriers, challenges, and problems that emerge.” While OERs undoubtedly work to remove barriers, there are many features of open learning that can be problematic. One such concern I had was the creation of student-curated works. Student resources can be a source of great insight and a good starting point when researching a topic. However, the validity and quality of student sources are often called into question. Mays (2017) discusses how students should be taught how to edit and create Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia is an open database of practically unlimited content, yet academic institutions rarely allow students to cite Wikipedia articles for assignments that are part of an accredited program. In traditional models of education, students seek the guidance and expertise of a qualified instructor. Student collaboration can certainly promote learning, but I am not convinced that student-curated resources and collaborative student-centered learning parallels traditional teacher-led models of education.

Another concern I had was the concept of digital equity. While OERs may remove barriers such as textbook costs or journal subscriptions, these costs are not nearly as cost prohibitive as the expensive technology require to access digital resources. Even with open learning, there will always be inequity when it comes to those that are able to access the necessary technology and those that cannot.

Open learning and OERs have many benefits, but they also have drawbacks. Currently many open learning courses are unaccredited and open educational resources should be carefully scrutinized for quality and validity. It seems that the best application of open learning and OERs is in situations where people live in remote communities and are looking for ways to gain and share knowledge. Kral and Schwab (2012) document the way indigenous people in Australia directly benefit from open learning and OERs. One application of openness was being able to share oral histories.  Using technology, songs and stories could be recorded and shared for others to listen to. Open learning also allows indigenous youth that live in remote communities to engage with the world through “music, theatre, film and various social media” (Kral and Schwab, 2012).

One thing that really stood out in Kral and Schwab (2012) is how both the three foundational values of open learning and the First People’s Principles of Learning were reflected. Mays (2017) describes the values of open learning as “autonomy and interdependence; freedom and responsibility; democracy and participation” (Paquette, 1979 cited in Mays, 2017). Those elements were present in many of the scenarios described from the reading. For example, the people were allowed to choose how to interact with the resources. Some used the computers to download music or play games, some used them for learning, and some used them to stay connected to their culture. There was a lot of freedom and choice in how people could chose to interact and participate with the resources. There was also responsibility in the fact that those that used the resources were expected to keep the library looking neat and tidy (Kral & Schwab, 2012). Descriptions of the indigenous youths learning by “mucking around” and honing “their focus through observation, listening, and experimentation” (Kral, 2011 cited in Kral & Schwab, 2012) made me connect to the First People’s Principles of Learning. The tenets of the First People’s Principles of Learning are built on the understanding that learning is “holistic, reflexive, reflective, experiential, and relational” and “embedded in memory, history, and story” (First Nations Education Steering Committee). By having access to recordings of elders and being able to create and share music, the indigenous youths were able to engage in a way of learning about their culture and themselves that was reflected in their traditional values of learning.

Although OERs and open learning may have some drawbacks, they make a very good alternative for those that are seeking ways to gain knowledge and share information. Open learning is a step in the right direction at removing the barriers and inequity that have traditionally stood in the way of higher learning. Perhaps in the future, all learning will be based on openness to better improve accessibility to education for everyone.

 

First Nations Education Steering Committee (fnesc). First Peoples Principles of Learning. https://www.fnesc.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/PUB-LFP-POSTER-Principles-of-Learning-First-Peoples-poster-11×17.pdf

 

Gilliard, C., & Culik, H. (2016, May 24). Digital Redlining, Access, and Privacy. Common Sense Education.

 

Kral, I. & Schwab, R.G. (2012). Chapter 4: Design Principles for Indigenous Learning Spaces. Safe Learning Spaces. Youth, Literacy and New Media in Remote Indigenous Australia. ANU Press. https://doi.org/10.22459/LS.08.2012

 

Mays, E. (Ed.)(2017). A guide to making open textbooks with students. Rebus Community.

 

Please visit pod #3’s site for project 1: Digital Equity & Perspectives in Distributed and Open Learning

Feel free to explore the site. You can see who our members are in the “About Us” tab and read a detailed summary of our learner’s persona.

You can hear my portion of the pitch below in SoundCloud.

 

This week’s readings answered a lot of the questions I had after last week’s readings. There are many different approaches to remote learning and I came into this course with preconceived notions of what distributed and open learning can look like based on my own limited experience. Last week, terms such as “blended learning” made me realize that there can be more than one model for remote instruction, but I had a difficult time visualizing how distributed and open learning could be an effective substitution for traditional face-to-face instruction. This week’s readings gave me a much clearer idea of the complexities of open and distributed learning and addressed some of my concerns regarding the social aspects of learning.

Jordan and Weller (2017) offer a very good starting place for understanding the different terminologies surrounding distributed and open learning. It is also worth noting that the concept of openness in education exists independently of technology and is considered a “more humanistic” way of making educational resources available to everyone (Jordan & Weller, 2017). Tools such as open access publishing and open educational resources help to remove the barriers to quality learning materials while distance learning, online learning, social media, and massive open online courses all offer platforms that make distributed and open learning possible. Despite the different methods and technologies of open education, a “learner-centred pedagogy” lies at the heart of all teaching. Jordan and Weller (2017) address concerns that technology can get in the way of the humanistic nature of open learning. It is suggested that technology only be used in ways that represent good teaching pedagogy. Technology can be used in such ways as “choosing education objectives, organizing and sequencing materials, displaying alternatives, providing learner control, enhancing motivation, and evaluating competence” (Resnick, 1972 cited in Jordan & Weller, 2017).

Clair Howell Major (2015) further examines how pedagogy must always come first in distributed and open learning. The various case studies from the text highlight how open and distributed learning can be extremely effective with the correct pedagogy. The instructors from the readings were able to measure the success of their courses because their students were both engaged and demonstrated skill development (Major, 2015).

I appreciated the insight of the instructors as they shared their experiences developing courses and teaching through distributed and open platforms. In one of the courses examined, Technology in Higher Education, the instructor shares how he started with what was already familiar in designing the course. Blogger was the chosen platform for learning because of the assumption that most students would have some prior experience with blogging and social media (Major, 2015). The instructor also made the conscious decision to include “familiar course elements” such as a syllabus and readings to maintain consistency for students (Major, 2015).

Perhaps the most intriguing example from the readings was the course designed for pre and in-service teachers. The instructor made the choice to have scheduled meeting times in a virtual community. While scheduling online meetings was considered unconventional, the instructor did succeed in bringing in the social aspect of collaborative learning into an online learning environment. The instructor had online meetings take place in a virtual world called Second Life, which allowed students to “engage in small-group work and a whole class seminar” (Major, 2015). While scheduled class meetings might reduce access to learning for some participants (i.e. those that may be unable to commit to scheduled meetings), it is still valuable in understanding how a learning community can be built even through distributed means. In another example, the instructor admits that community was not “an articulated goal for the class” but that forum discussions still encouraged interactions (Major, 2015).

Major (2015) acknowledges that not all in-person teaching can be “replicated online,” but does make a sound argument that “online courses can be a rewarding and meaningful experience, as well as an effective way to learn challenging material.” What really stood out was the diversity of the student backgrounds. In one example of open learning, 94 000 students enrolled ranging in age from 8 to 88 and resided in over one-hundred countries (Major, 2015). This example clearly shows the advantages of open learning in making education available to anyone that desires it.

The biggest take-away from the readings is that technology is merely the vehicle for reaching students. Learning should be the same whether it happens face-to-face or through a computer screen. Good pedagogy should always be at the forefront when designing a course. These readings helped me to see that online courses can be every bit as comprehensive and engaging as traditional learning. Whether offering a course in-person or through distributed and open learning, an effective teacher is essential in engaging students and building a community of learners.

 

 

Jordan, K. & Weller, M. (2017) Openness and Education: A beginners’ guide. Global OER Graduate Network.

 

Major, Clair Howell. (2015). Teaching Online – A Guide to Theory, Research, and Practice. Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvic/detail.action?docID=3318874 (pp. 88-105)

 

The topic of technology in education is much more complex than it appears on the surface. As an educator, it is undeniable that technology can enhance learning in many ways. The concept of “blended learning” (Vaughan, Garrison, & Cleveland-Innes, 2013) was particularly interesting for me because that seems to be the path forward for traditional education. Online platforms are increasing in popularity because they help engage learners and reinforce the concepts learned in face-to-face instruction. Technology can also be used to differentiate instruction and provide accessibility for those with physical or intellectual disabilities or students that may be identified as ELL. Teachers are increasingly being encouraged to incorporate technology in our learning and sometimes online platforms are pushed on us by our districts or administrators. In most cases, only the positive aspects of integrating technology into the classroom are explored. While the topics of privacy and security always come to the forefront when discussing social media platforms, those issues are consistently ignored over the perceived benefits of engaging with the technologies. Reading about the ethical considerations in educational technologies was eye-opening because I realized that I had a pre-perceived bias that a tool used to support student learning would be designed to be safe. By far the “muddiest” concept from the readings is how online educational platforms track student data. The concept of community building in online learning is another area that also needs more discussion.

Reagan and Jesse (2019) outline how educational platforms can occasionally have nefarious intentions when it comes to storing and tracking student data. Administrative and learning process data can be used to extrapolate private information to track students. Information such as “demographic, achievement and behavioral data collected by the schools, other government agencies, and contractors” as well as “[a]ttendance records, test scores, transcripts, school lunch eligibility, and individualized education plans” are all collected as ways to track students (Reagan & Jesse, 2019). Information is collected under the guise of maximizing “learning effectiveness and efficiency” (Bienkowski et al. 2012, p. 32 cited in Reagan & Jesse, 2019). However, studies have found that “tracking has minimal effects on learning outcomes and profound negative effects on equity outcomes” (Strauss 2013 cited in Reagan & Jesse, 2019). In some situations, the information gathered can be used to manipulate students. In one terrifying example, the Class Dojo software is praised as a “social emotional learning and behavioral modification software developed to inculcate, assess, and change students’ personality traits in order to predict and steer children into careers chosen by corporations and governments, not the students” (Effrem 2018 cited in Reagan & Jesse, 2019). Furthermore, many online platforms that collect sensitive data can actually take ownership of the student records collected.

It is no secret that big social media companies such as Facebook regularly come under scrutiny for privacy and security concerns. Facebook collects user generated data to sell targeted ads for revenue. By tracking user information, Facebook knows information such as the user’s “political beliefs; psychological problems; sex behavior or attitudes; anti-social or demeaning behavior; and religious beliefs” — the very same information the 1978 Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment strives to protect (Reagan & Jesse, 2019). Facebook is also no stranger to manipulation tactics. In 2014, Facebook “was criticised for manipulating the news feeds of nearly 700,000 users without their consent” (BBC, 2014). The fact that the “Chan Zuckerberg Initiative’s education division, which is separate from Facebook but somewhat related, has given millions of dollars to the Summit Learning Platform” (Reagan & Jesse, 2019) is a good reminder that student information can easily become compromised and exploited.

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is a step in the right direction towards protecting digital privacy, but even the process of requiring informed consent can feel problematic because oftentimes, “the educational relationship is mandatory, not voluntary, thus obviating or restricting a realistic choice option” (Reagan & Jesse, 2019). If parents perceive that the alternative to consenting to online tools is that their child goes without an important part of their schooling, it restricts the freedom of choice.

The biggest take-away from the topic readings is to be always be mindful of where student information is stored and how the data is used. In my district, we have an approved list of online resources and if teachers are unsure of how sensitive student data is used, they should stick only to the approved resources. As classrooms become increasingly blended, it will become even more important to understand digital privacy and security.

The topic of community building is also particularly interesting to me and I would like to explore further how a sense of community, support, and belonging might change depending on if learning occurs face-to-face, entirely online, or in a blended classroom setting. Anecdotally, I have taken courses in both face-to-face and online settings. In most of my face-to-face instruction, there were situations where I became part of a learning community and felt supported by my peers. Face-to-face instruction is certainly not a given that students will feel a strong sense of community, but it does seem more organic for community to develop through face-to-face instruction. I have admittedly less experience in online learning, but in my limited experience, I found the learning to be entirely individualistic with no peer group for support. Learning has an undeniably social aspect to it and “we view a community of inquiry as the concept that best captures the ideal of a higher educational experience … Both a sense of community and a commitment to the process of inquiry must be in place” (Vaughan, Garrison, & Cleveland-Innes, 2013). A blended classroom is comprised of both face-to-face instruction and online learning so there are clear opportunities for peer groups to build a connection with one another. I am left wondering how distributed and opened learning manages to build community and engage learners in the process of inquiry. In traditional face-to-face instruction students also have opportunities to interact with peers and develop oral language. For students that are identified as ELL or ESD, face-to-face instruction may be necessary for the development of language skills. At my current level of understanding, it seems that face-to-face instruction has a clear academic advantage due to the fact that students can engage in discussing and sharing ideas with their peers. While discussion can also be done remotely, not all students have the articulation and language skills to express their ideas as succinctly as through oral language. Platforms such as Zoom make it possible to videocall, but often the level of engagement is not the same for young children. Furthermore, audio lag can make understanding language and body language more challenging. For example, as a music teacher, I know that students cannot sing together through video conferencing because there is too much audio lag.

Perhaps I am naïve in my understanding of distributed and opened learning. In my mind I see children trying to engage in the same Moodle interface that we use in CourseSpaces. I am sure that throughout this course, I will better understand what exactly distributed and open means and how teachers can practice “good digital pedagogy” (Stommel, 2018) to ensure that students can build a community of inquiry in a way that best protects their digital privacy and security. I look forward to better understanding the pros and cons of distributed and open learning and better integrating technology into my current teaching practice.

 

BBC News. (2014). Facebook admits failings over emotion manipulation study. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29475019

 

Regan, P., & Jesse, J. (2019). Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning: Twenty-first century student sorting and tracking. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(3), 167-179. DOI: 10.1007/s10676-018-9492-2

 

Stommel, J. (2018). An urgency of teachers: The work of critical digital pedagogy. Hybrid Pedagogy.https://criticaldigitalpedagogy.pressbooks.com/chapter/learning-is-not-a-mechanism/

 

 Vaughan, N. D., Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. AU Press. [Chapter 1] https://www.aupress.ca/books/120229-teaching-in-blended-learning-environments/