Intentions+and+Positions

I've moved some of Peggy's text to other sections, but most of it stays in tact. A few questions: 1. should we include some opposing view or critque of online learning? the rubric says we should offer points of view. I tried to do this with constructivism (key concepts and contexts section) (that would be good - online learning is here to stay; critques just give us direction as how to improve online learning, which is a good way to help us focus; I did like the bit that you added about critiques of constructivism) 2. should we offer more info on what __we__ are doing with the technology, as opposed to frameworks and literature? it's a tough call because Peggy has a ton of good stuff in here. (I think ourproposal should have lots of what we are planning to do; see if we now have enough) 3. the last paragraph that starts with "Meeting the learning outcomes..." seems a bit out of place. Maybe it would be better in the concepts and contexts? I'm not sure (I did re-organizes several things; see if that helps) 4. I couldn't find some of the references used (Watson, Murin, et al 2010, Picciano and Seaman 2007, Duncan and Barnett 2009 and some confusion with SREB 2006a, 2006b, 2006c - only have references for 2006b and 2006c). (I was in a rush & forgot to add these, but they are now in the 2nd draft which I've uploaded & linked to on our home page)

An oft-heard complaint of high school science teachers in Saskatchewan, and one would suspect across Canada, is of a content-heavy curriculum full of facts and figures. In order to address all content in the available time of a course, teacher-centered instruction in the form of lectures is often seen as the most efficient way to deliver content. Unfortunately, such cognitive approaches to learning rarely seem to produce the depth of understanding or long-term retention that results in meaningful knowledge. The emphasis on such content-heavy curricula that predominantly focuses on the absorption of specific pieces of information by the student, with a skilful teacher hopefully aiding the student in making meaningful connections. Students often play a passive role, absorbing the information but not actively participating in its creation. Learning in this environment is an individual process. Student attention and motivation is often minimal, not surprising in the age of the millennial student who typically experiences high levels of stimulation from pervasive personal technology and electronic social networks including Facebook and texting. To answer some of these growing concerns, governments are making a shift to 21st Century Learning (21C). 21C can embody many different concepts two of which are addressed in our project goals: the use of constructivism as student-centered learning, and the role of online learning for flexibility and differentiation (“21st Century Learning,” n.d.). Constructivism, which can increase student motivation (Palmer, 2005), will be dealt with in more detail in the Key Concepts and Contexts section. Below, we discuss the issue of online learning and its significance in our project.

As face-to-face classes become more learner-centered and inquiry-based, so much the online classroom. Evolving from traditional paper-and-mail correspondence courses, distance education is currently mediated by a variety of tools and modalities but is typically defined as teacher-directed instruction where the teacher and the students are separated geographically (Cavanaugh and Clark, 2007; Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, and Rapp, 2010). Asynchronous courses add separation by time. A variety of terms apply to current models of distance education – web-based learning, e-learning, and online learning. Regardless of delivery mode, an essential need of any distance education course or program is that students receive a quality of education comparable to those attending classes in a brick-and-mortar building. Several recent meta-analytical studies suggest that well-designed distance learning programs are at least as effective as well-designed traditional learning environments (Cavanaugh & Clark, 2007).

There are many reasons for providing learning via distance and Saskatchewan has a long history of distance education due to its large rural population. Rural communities often face particular challenges arising from difficulties in attracting teaching specialists and, even when found the result is typically low student-teacher ratios which results in higher per pupil costs (Picciano and Seaman, 2009). Personal experience has shown that these low per class ratios are often resolved by extensive use of multigraded and multiclass sections. Credit recovery, greater course selection, the opportunity to take university level courses are additional reasons for providing distance education (Picciano and Seaman, 2009). Online learning is also particularly situated to develop 21st century learning skills including self-direction and responsibility in learning, time management, technological literacy, problem solving skills, and global awareness (Cavanaugh and Clark, 2007; Watson, as cited in Duncan and Barnett, 2009).

But what is required to create online opportunities that fully meet these needs and goals? The Canadian Council of Learning (as cited in Barbour, 2009, p. 7) made clear the importance of effective course delivery and instruction by stating that the “delivery of resources. . . does not guarantee learning.” Relevant factors to consider in designing and managing an effective distance education program can be narrowed down to several areas (Cavanaugh & Clark, 2007) – recognition of intrinsic student characteristics, instructional factors, course design, technology, and administrative practices. Watson and Gemin (2009) provide recommendations for managing and operating online programs in the categories of curriculum development and course quality, teacher management, student support, technology management, and program evaluation.

In his review Conrad (2007) noted several key roles and attributes of successful online teachers – a constructivist, learner-centered pedagogy, strong planning and management skills, technological skills, and the ability to engage students in collaborative and social learning. Online teachers need particularly effective communication skills. Kearsley and Bloymeyer (as cited in Davis & Rose, 2007) provide specifics that are useful when evaluating online teachers – providing timely and meaningful feedback, creating engaging learning activities, the ability to keep students motivated and interested, promoting effective interactions between students, and encouraging critical and reflective skills in students. Both the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB; 2006a; 2006b) and iNACOL (Watson & Gemin, 2009) have released several publications relating to providing quality in online programs in terms of both course design and teacher attributes.

What course design features promote student success? Some factors directly relate pedagogy to design. Clear expectations, concrete deadlines with some flexibility, strategies to aid student such as time sheets and study guides, and outlines of course requirements are all critical (Cavanaugh & Clark, 2007). The SREB (//Standards for quality online courses//, 2006c) categorizes course design standards into course content, instructional design, student assessment, technology, and course evaluation and management. Thus developing an online module requires consideration and interplay of pedagogy and design considerations, including proper incorporation of the affordances provided by technology and administration.

Anderson and Dron (2011) also identify what should be the proper relationship between pedagogy and technology when designing online courses : “the technology [should] sets the beat and creates the music, while the pedagogy defines the moves” (p. 81) and cautions when the technology takes on too much influence and become leaders rather than partners of the dance. This interplay is often skewed and they highlight how the use of a LMS often encourages content-laden pedagogies.

Meeting the learning outcomes should also address the four goals of science education (Figure 1). One of the four goals, Understand the Nature of Science and STSE (Science, Technology, Society & Environment) Interrelationships – stresses the importance of students demonstrating an understanding of the nature of science and technology. Central to the nature of science is the collaboration and knowledge-building relationships between scientists. As identified by Scardamalia and Bereiter’s (1994), encouraging the development of this practice is a desired approach for classroom learning. This also plays a part in what is referred to as “thinking about thinking “.

Figure 1. The four goals of K-12 science education in Saskatchewan. Graphic provided by Dean Elliott, Ministry of Education science consultant.

Figure 1. The four goals of K-12 science education in Saskatchewan. Graphic provided by Dean Elliott, Ministry of Education science consultant.