Rhythm, flexibility, activity – Summarising the ONL experience

In this blog post I will summarise what I think are the most important things that I have learnt during the course and also touch upon how my learning will influence my professional practice.

Rhythm

Every course, whether it is online or not, has a rhythm. In this course the rhythm has been the pace and relationship between topic launch, webinars, tweet chats, PBL group meetings, course readings, asynchronous collaborative working, blog posts and group presentations. One take home message I have learnt is that it is important to reveal and clarify the rhythm of a course. I think this is important in order for participants to plan their work and get the most out of each activity in the course.

Flexibility

To study online (compared with studying offline) offers greater flexibility in geographical aspects. This opens up for participation from several countries in different time zones and I think this is a fruitful example of internationalisation at home (IaH). But at the same time this also affects (reduces) flexibility in course design. You have to take into consideration that late changes can be difficult to handle by the students/peers. I will take this into consideration when designing courses where several time zones are involved.

Activity

The ONL course has given me a blueprint of how to work and study online with modern technology, both synchronously and asynchronously. I especially like the triad of Zoom, Mentimeter and Padlet in order to flip the online classroom. Another triad for asynchronous work is Google docs, blogs and the WordPress-Google-community-space.

Summing up – how ONL will influence my professional future

To start with, I will definitively try and be more open with the learning resources I am creating. I will try and use Creative Commons on my productions. Secondly, I would like to deepen my readings of Gilly Salmon’s books E-moderating and E-tivities and also complement these with texts regarding blended learning, that my colleagues in the PBL group have provided during the discussions we have had. Thirdly, I will investigate if it is possible for our unit to buy a few licenses of Mentimeter, since I have found that the tool is a good way of activating students in synchronous online sessions. Last but not least – thank you to all of you who have participated in this round of the ONL course, it has been a challenging and fun journey!

Blended bachelor: A collaborative learning experience stretched in time

In this blog post, I have chosen to reflect on an occasion when real collaborative learning took place, that moved my own thinking forward.

In the beginning of 2000 I studied a full-time bachelor programme. It was a campus programme, but because of the subject matter (ICT and learning) many of the courses had elements of blended learning (even if they did not use the concept at that time). Along with more traditional activities, such as campus lectures, seminars, and laboratory work, we also had a permanent home online, First Class – an online conference tool similar but not equivalent to today’s learning management systems.

For each course in the programme, we had a course area on FirstClass, where we could communicate and work together in the course. This was convenient since the students in the programme were not only 19 year old youths, but also working age students with families. We were also scattered around the county (i.e. a majority not living on campus). All these factors contributed to the fact that an online area where we could communicate and work together were appreciated. With that said, it was not easy in the beginning.

A common source of frustration is social loafing behaviour and free riders (Capdeferro & Romero, 2012). To avert this in the groups, the teachers began the courses with the activity of group contracts (Centre for teaching excellence, 2019). I think they sometimes termed it learning contracts as well. Prior to working with the content in the course, the group had to discuss how to work with each other (both f2f and online) and how to act if the agreement were not followed. It happened once or twice during the three-year programme that some of the groups consulted their contracts and the teachers when group work did not work, in order to remedy the situation.

One of the strategies for improving the quality of group collaboration is to provide sufficient time. Brindley et al contends that “most importantly, time is required for the discussion and exchange of ideas that are crucial to deeper learning” (Brindley, Walti & Blaschke, 2009, p. 12). It is also widely known that time-on-task also affects learning and the quality thereof (Romero & Barberà, 2011). One of the things I liked most with the learning design of the programme were that we had a designated space for each course on the online conference platform. There, the teachers had integrated asynchronous online seminar discussions stretched out in time during most part of the course. In this way, we prepared for synchronous f2f seminars and also continued the f2f seminars later online. We also had seminars entirely online, stretched out during the course. I think this way of working supports time-on-task in general, but the format also affords possibilities for deeper learning in that the students could read, discuss and then read some more to deepen the discussions even more. In between, there were time for reflection, something that is also beneficial for learning.

References

Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. M. & Walti, C. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3).

Capdeferro, N. & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences?. The International review of research in open and distance learning, 13(2), 26-44.

Centre for teaching excellence (2019). Making Group Contracts. Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo. Available:https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-teaching-excellence/teaching-resources/teaching-tips/developing-assignments/group-work/making-group-contracts

Romero, M., & Barberà, E. (2011). Quality of e-learners’ time and learning performance beyond quantitative time-on-task. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(5), 125-137. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i5.999

Roads ahead in guiding colleagues about online and blended learning

The topic Design for online and blended learning have been the most challenging topic so far in the ONL-course. Even if I have experienced both being a student and a teacher in online and blended learning, I am still struggling when taking the position to guide colleagues in re(designing) their courses for online or blended. I am hesitating when thinking of what could be the best way to start. What should be the first scaffold I put in their hands when they ask for written guidance? Should it be Salmons five stage model (Salmon, 2011, 2013a, 2013b), or does it only deal with e-moderating skills and technological aspects of the online experience? Would it be better to start off with the Community of Inquiry framework instead (Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes & Garrison, 2013)? Or something completely else?

The five stage model and the Community of Inquiry framework are new to me, even if I have stumbled upon them previously during my career. They seem to be similar in that they both claim to constitute frameworks for online and blended learning (cf. Cleveland-Innes, 2018; Salmon, 2011). But on the other hand, I also find them different in character putting Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes and Garrison (2013) and Salmon (2013a) side by side. It seems like the Community of Inquiry could best be described as thematic in its approach, and the five stage model have more of a linear approach (dealing with a course from beginning to end). I am inclined to think that the five stage model therefore could be my choice if I need to focus on introducing only one framework in the very beginning of helping a colleague out. On the other hand, it bothers me that I do not yet know enough about the model in order to take a stance. Emotional presence has been proven to have important bearing on the teaching and learning process (Cleveland-Innes, 2019) and I am sitting here wondering if emotional presence are handled in the five stage model?

An issue related to concrete guidelines is the experiences I have made in this ONL course in relation to my studies for the bachelor’s degree, where we worked collaboratively in blended mode. I experienced the collaboration activities more as collaborating during the bachelor’s degree and more of dividing the work among the colleagues during the ONL course. I am not sure if this situation relates to the difference in length of the courses (ONL lasting for 10 weeks and a bachelor programme lasting for three years), the amount of time the participants have available for participating or the amount of time that the course stipulates, or if it depends on the composition of individuals, or if it is related to the learning design or something completely else.

When considering the learning design regarding the learning contract/group contract/guidelines for group collaboration in the ONL and the bachelor’s degree, I see a couple of differences. We spent more time on the contract in the bachelor’s degree, both as individuals and as a group, synchronously discussing how to work with each other. We also tried to be very specific when formulating the agreements during the bachelor’s degree. One example of how to be specific could be to write “Each member of the group should login on the platform and partake in the discussion actively at least two times a week”. A less specific way of expressing it (we did that in the beginning of the bachelor’s degree) could be “Each member of the group should login on a regular basis.” This makes me think of if there are any templates and guidelines out there regarding online learning contracts/online group contracts. I found an article licensed under Creative Commons, entitled Making Group Contracts. Centre for Teaching Excellence, University of Waterloo (Centre for teaching excellence, 2019) where an online group work contract template from the Taylor Institute Teaching Community, the University of Calgary are mentioned. Unfortunately, the link is no longer in function and I have not yet succeeded to find it elsewhere, but this is something I will follow up after the ONL course, since I would like to access examples of how these scaffolds of learning/group contracts for online learning could be formed.

References

Centre for teaching excellence (2019). Making group contracts. Available: https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-for-teaching-excellence/teaching-resources/teaching-tips/developing-assignments/group-work/making-group-contracts

Cleveland-Innes, M. (2019). Emotion and learning –  emotional presence in the Community of Inquiry framework (CoI)? Introductory video on the Padlet.

Cleveland-Innes, M. (2018) Community of Inquiry and Teaching Presence: Facilitation in online and blended learning. Presentation slides from ONL181 webinar.

Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. New York: Routledge.

Salmon, G. (2013a). The Five Stage Model. Retrieved from: http://www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html

Salmon, G. (2013b). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. New York: Routledge.

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M. & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Edmonton: AU Press.

Public scenes and training arenas – reflections on open and closed technologies for teaching and learning

One main take home message from Topic 2: Open education is that open and closed should be seen as ends on a continuum rather than two fixed categories (we discussed this with Creelman and Oddone during the webinar). If continuing that line of reasoning, it becomes interesting to reflect upon how you position yourself on this scale and why. This blog post will deal with these issues.

The word closed could perhaps have different connotations, but from my cultural context it often suffers with negative connotations. For instance, when listening to Wiley (2010), he states that course management systems have become a “technology used against its own potential made to conceal and withhold”, implying that open is better for several reasons. Risking being perceived as reactionary, I would like to linger a while regarding closedness. Is it just a matter of concealing and withholding in the name of screaming “mine”, or could there be sound pedagogical reasoning behind such a stance on the open-closed continuum?

My colleague have lately began to use the concept training arena when we discuss teaching and learning designs (thank you for giving permission to refer to your thoughts Gedda). In order to get away from the negative connotations of closed I am in this blog post trying to think of the continuum as a gliding space between (closed) training arenas– and (open) public scenes.

For a PhD student the training arena could be the seminar room, where article manuscripts are dissected and discussed in great detail. The scene could be seen as the journal where the manuscript are published and the conversation with the reviewers as well. To practice a conference presentation at your home institution as part of competence development for colleagues could be seen as a training arena for the PhD student. Carrying through the presentation at a conference could be seen as an example of a public scene. Another example is a university pedagogy course versus teaching in the classroom. For students’ their time at their university could be seen as a training arena and later the working life constitutes the public scene. I think that part of our mission as teachers then becomes to determine when the learning situation calls for more (closed) training arenas and when it calls for more (open) public scenes.

One could ask what the point is in learning on a training arena instead of an open scene. Well, to learn is to practice and the result of practising often leads to failure in some aspects. And, as you know, we learn by making mistakes. Usually we are not that proud of making mistakes. To know that you are going to make mistakes could make you feel troubled. Our mission as teachers is then to organise a learning situation that is safe enough for students to feel comfortable enough to try something out – even if that sometimes (most likely) lead to failure. Organising such a learning situation – or a training arena – must perhaps at sometimes be more closed in order to be safe. A closed training arena afford sensitive discussions, a safe climate where you can test not fully developed ideas without losing your face in front of people you may not even meet, or perhaps meet when you are applying for a job. To try out skills and test new knowledge in relation to others could be seen as something scary, and therefore enjoins a safe climate – a training arena rather than a public stage. One of the strengths with a more closed training arena is that it affords the possibility to wipe the mistakes away while keeping the end results – learning outcomes. Perhaps the end results (knowledge, expertise, skills) could be more surfaced by badges (Weller & Anderson, 2013) or showrooms for products?

To summarise: by the end of the day I think it all comes down to the pedagogical rationale again. I think it is up to the teacher to determine if the learning outcomes, the character of the students and the subject matter calls for more of a (safe) (closed) training arena or more of an (open) public scene in order for students to reach the learning goals. Perhaps we could find fruitful ways in combining closed training arenas and public scenes during a programme, based on a pedagogical rationale? I think both training arenas and public scenes are needed in order to prepare students for the labour market and their lifelong learning.

References

Weller, M. & Anderson, T. (2013). Digital resilience in higher education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 16, 53.

Wiley, D. (2010). Open education and the future, Short TED-talk by David Wiley.

Thriving by pruning: Living online in retrospect

In this blog post, I will discuss who I am in the digital era and what have characterized my journey this far. I will do this by comparing my current state with how it looked like for five years ago, utilising the visitor-resident model.

I have been living online for many years, having a presence e.g. on Facebook since 2007, LinkedIn since 2010 and Twitter since 2011. This has probably to do with my background as an instructional designer. I have a clear memory from my very first course at the university, studying for my bachelor’s degree and becoming an instructional designer. It was late in the evening and I was deep down in my course readings. Among other things, we read Sherry Turkle’s Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet (1995) which dealt with questions of how living online makes us re-evaluating our identity. Since that course, I am every now and then reflecting on the relationship between online and offline presence and how they could be viewed as merging, spilling over into each other, but are also kept apart (Bolldén, 2015; Sundén, 2007, 2009). Regardless of how you see the relationship, I think Suchman (2007) describes it well when she contends that figures of human are materialized in technology, or Mol (2002) who speaks about a body multiple. In a digital era, we actively produce ourselves in online-offline settings, whether deliberately or unintentionally. Even if you do not produce yourself in a certain setting (e.g. in a social network on a certain platform) that is also a choice.

In order to make my journey and digital engagements visible, I have utilized the visitor-resident model (White & Le Cornu, 2011). This is how my map looked like in 2015:

Visitor-resident map 2015

About five years later, it looks like this:

Visitor-resident map 2019

Can you see any differences? At first glance, perhaps the most visible is that new platforms have emerged (such as Spotify, BookBeat, Instagram, Zoom, Canvas, GoogleDocs and Box). One could ask if this is only a matter of digital development. I am inclined to say no. Of course, it has to do with new products on the market (which invites me to not only read books but also listen to them when being at the gym). But it also has to do with a shift of university and profession – from researcher to educational developer. When carrying out my research platforms like Adobe Connect, Second Life and the emailing list of the association of internet researchers were central. Today, platforms like Zoom, Twitter, Box and GoogleDocs are more central to the current profession.

Another difference is that my digital residency has increased in my professional practice (lower right corner). This has caused a digital fatigue in my personal residency. In other words, I find myself to be less residential online for personal purposes and expands my top left quadrant more and more. Another reason for the growing hollowness in the top right quadrant is the experience of becoming a more public person, due to both the professional practice but also moving to a smaller city. The debate on privacy issues on social networks such as Facebook contributes as well. During the last couple of years, I have observed new behaviours, such as restricting access to my spaces on platforms located in the top right hand corner, googling myself on a regular basis and being more careful to what I am signing up for when entering new platforms. Is this development good or not? I am not entirely sure. But in line with Turkle (1995) I am re-evaluating my identity when observing myself materialised in technology, and carries out a daily struggle of handling my personal-professional body multiple (Mol, 2002). What I can see when watching my journey in retrospective, I see that I am thriving in the digital age by pruning my life online. Pruning because of the shortcomings of the platforms’ ability in handling my data with care, pruning because of new technical developments (new platforms), pruning because of the total amount of time I want to spend online – regardless if it is for personal or professional purposes (I want to spend time with my family, being outdoors, meeting colleagues both online and offline). To summarise: I have come to a state where I need to prune in order to thrive.

References

Bolldén, K. (2015). Online teaching practices: Sociomaterial matters in higher education settings (Doctoral thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden).

Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice (2nd printing 2005). Durham: Duke University Press.

Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sundén, J. (2007). On cyberfeminist intersectionality. In M. Sveningsson Elm & J. Sundén (Eds.), Cyberfeminism in northern lights: Digital media and gender in a Nordic context (pp. 30–50). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Sundén, J. (2009). Double life on the screen. In A. N. Markham & N. K. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method (pp. 119– 123). Los Angeles: Sage

Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.

White, D. & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16(9)

About me

Hi!

I am Karin Bolldén, an open learner this round of ONL and a member of PBL group 14. This will be my learning blog during the ONL journey which I have been looking forward to for a long time.

Karin Bolldén

Professional background

I am working as an educational developer at University Pedagogy Centre, Luleå University of Technology. Luleå is a city in northern Sweden, close to the arctic circle. I was recruited to Luleå late 2016 and is therefore quite new to both the university and the role at the University Pedagogy Centre. My primary interest at the moment is learning environments (both physical and digital) since we are in the process of building a new house at campus Luleå (we also have campuses in Kiruna, Skellefteå, Piteå and Filipstad).

I have a PhD in education with a focus on adult learning from Linköping University. My thesis addressed online teaching practices in higher education. The interest regarding learning and teaching online germinated in early 2000 when studying for a bachelors degree in Skövde and later for a master in Gothenburg in the area of ICT and learning. During 2006-2008 I taught a few courses, and among them were distance education. I also taught in other subjects (e.g. computer science) where the courses were distance courses, so I have a little experience in the area of learning and teaching online, but the years go fast and so the technological development. At that time we did not have e-meeting services as Zoom, or social media as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook. So even if I am born in the eighties, I often feel like a dinosaur (old!) 🙂 when it comes to the rapid development regarding new tools on the market that could serve as a pedagogical asset in learning and teaching in higher education. That is why I have been longing for participating in ONL – I think and hope that this course could contribute to my transformation from a dinosaur to a (Twitter) bird(?) 🙂

Expectations on the course

There are so much to learn during this ONL journey, but what I am looking forward to the most is two things. The first is networking on a global scale. I am curious about the participants and facilitators in this course and their professional practice and daily struggles regarding learning and teaching online. Secondly I am looking forward to get an update on online tools that could be used in learning and teaching, and related discussions and conversations on how they could be used in a conscious way to promote learning. When dealing with social media and other apps in a European context, GDPR – The General Data Protection Regulation – is a challenge that I on a daily basis experience stands in the way of new creative solutions that university teachers want to try in their teaching practice. My main question during the whole ONL journey will be: How could we navigate in this new legal landscape whilst not losing the pedagogical inspiration along the way?

Last but not least – hobbies

On the other side of the screen, you find an outdoorsy and a bit adventurous person. Love to be in the sub arctic archipelago picking wild berries and also flying in the wind tunnel sometimes. 🙂 I am really looking forward getting to know you! See you online! 🙂

Import successful!

Well done! You imported a post and all categories of the Open Networked Learning course homepage. You can edit or delete this post, then start blogging by creating a new post!

You might also want to consider to connect your blog to the ONL course homepage.

Once you have been allocated to a PBL group, you can delete all other PBL group categories apart from your own PBL group category.