Peggy+-+Distance+Learning

//Last updated Saturday afternoon at 1:30. . Current word count is 2313. I will take a break & have a look at what everyone else has posted, too, when I come back. THoughts on using something like this - can your pieces fit into something like this? What are key things we might be missing?// This is very comprehensive and excellent work Peggy. I'm shifting some of your text into other sections, and will probably propose a couple of changes.

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 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 and often competitive process. Student attention and motivation is often minimal, not surprising in the age of the millennial student who typically experiences high levels stimulation from pervasive personal technology and electronic social networks including Facebook and texting. A move toward a constructivist pedagogy has moved the emphasis of learning from one which emphasizes memorization to one that recognizes the importance of the process of learning. This requires that students become active participants in the learning process. [More on constructivism, and social constructivism]. With the world body of knowledge expanding and changing at an ever-increasing rate, the ability to gather and assimilate new information – the process of learning – becomes even more critical than the ability to memorize an ever-increasing mass of information. Developing such 21st century learning skills among our students becomes more essential.

All Saskatchewan curricula are currently undergoing a renewal. Changes reflect the shift in pedagogical thinking that is needed to prepare our students for a newer age. Renewed K- 9 Saskatchewan science courses specify four goals, or broad statements, identifying what students are expected to know and be able do upon course completion (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 2011). Senior science curricula are yet in the early stages of being rewritten but are expected to continue in this direction. These goals recognize that a successful science program must focus on the developing the process of learning by students, not just content mastery and express the importance of moving towards a new constructivist framework.
 * Understand the Nature of Science and STSE Interrelationships - Students will develop an understanding of the nature of science and technology, their interrelationships, and their social and environmental contexts, including interrelationships between the natural and constructed world.
 * Construct Scientific Knowledge - Students will construct an understanding of concepts, principles, laws, and theories in life science, in physical science, in earth and space science, and in Indigenous Knowledge of nature; and then apply these understandings to interpret, integrate, and extend their knowledge.
 * Develop Scientific and Technological Skills - Students will develop the skills required for scientific and technological inquiry, problem solving, and communicating; for working collaboratively; and for making informed decisions.
 * Develop Attitudes that Support Scientific Habits of Mind - Students will develop attitudes that support the responsible acquisition and application of scientific, technological, and Indigenous knowledge to the mutual benefit of self, society, and the environment.

These goals are intended to be the focus of all science education, not only learning that takes place in a standard face-to-face classroom. 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 and 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, et al., 2008, 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 (2009; 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 and 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. Davis and Rose (2007, citing Kearsley and Blomeyer, 2003) 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 and 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 and Clark, 2007). The SREB (2006c) categorizes course design standards into course content, instructional design, student assessment, technology, and course evaluation and management. Several key considerations of these points include (SREB, 2006c, pg 6):
 * **Student Assessment**
 * **Standard**: //The course uses multiple strategies and activities to assess student readiness for and progress in course content and provides students with feedback on their progress.//
 * Evaluation strategies
 * Indicators
 * Student evaluation strategies are consistent with course goals and objectives, representative of the scope of the course and clearly stated.
 * The structure includes adequate and appropriate methods and procedures to assess students’ mastery of content.
 * Feedback
 * Indicators
 * Ongoing and frequent assessments are conducted to verify each student’s readiness for the next lesson.
 * Assessment strategies and tools make the student continuously aware of his/her progress in class and mastery of the content beyond letter grades.
 * Assessment Resources and Materials
 * Indicators
 * Assessment materials provide the teacher with the flexibility to assess students in a variety of ways.
 * Grading rubrics and models of partially to fully completed assignments are provided to the teacher.
 * Grading policy and practices are easy to understand.
 * **Technology**
 * **Standard**: //The course takes full advantage of a variety of technology tools, has a user-friendly interface and meets accessibility standards for interoperability and access for learners with special needs.//
 * Course Architecture
 * Indicators
 * Architecture permits the online teacher to add content, activities and assessments to extend learning opportunities.
 * The course accommodates multiple school calendars: e.g. block, 4x4 and traditional schedules.
 * User Interface
 * Indicators
 * The course is easy to navigate
 * The course makes maximum use of the capabilities of the online medium and makes resources available by alternative means; e.g., video, CDs and podcasts.
 * Technology Requirements and Interoperability
 * Indicators
 * Hardware, Web browser and software requirements are specified.
 * Prerequisite skills in the use of technology are indicated.
 * Appropriate content-specific tools and software are utilized.
 * Interoperability technical standards allow sharing content among different learning management systems.
 * Interoperability technical standards ensure sharing of questions, assessments and results with others.
 * Accessibility
 * Indicators
 * The course meets universal design principles, Section 508 standards and W3C guidelines to ensure access for all students.
 * Online textbooks used in a course meet nationally endorsed standards (NIMAS) for publishers to ensure distribution of accessible, alternative versions of text-books and other instructional materials.
 * Technical Support
 * Indicators
 * The course provider offers the course teacher, students and school coordinator assistance with technical support and course management.
 * The course provider offers orientation training.

Thus developing online modules or entire units of studies requires consideration and interplay of numerous factors – pedagogy, design considerations including proper incorporation of the affordances provided by technology, and administration. Anderson and Dron (2011) recently introduced a typology of distance education pedagogy with three generations – cognitive-behaviourist, social-constructivist, and connectivist. From personal experience I know the cognitive-behaviourist model is well-represented in Saskatchewan distance education classes, including those which I had developed in the past. This model tends to be teacher-centered and individualistic, and, as the authors point out, based on instruction systems designs. This last indicator, however, Anderson and Dron (2011) also eloquently 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 caution when the technology takes on too much influence and become leaders rather than partners of the dance. As an example of how this interplay is often skewed, they point how the use of learning management systems (LMS) often encourages content-laden pedagogies.

The goal of our project is to design an online module for a Human Genetics unit focusing on the laws of heredity. Cognitive approaches to presenting this material to students is typically very teacher-driven, lecture oriented, with some time given to lab work (//Drosophila// breeding experiments are common) to verify and experience firsthand basic genetic principles of inheritance. Converting this content into an online module is a relatively simple task if the approach to instruction is left unchanged. Posting text-based content, or even video-lessons, into an LMS is straight-forward. Online genetics simulations, such as found at [] can easily replace standard lab work. Assessments of learning in the form of traditional multiple choice and short-answer tests can easily be created within the LMS. Our challenge, however, will be to demonstrate a pedagogical shift in this approach, to a contructivist, student-centered approach, and to do so in an online environment. What are some special considerations that need to be addressed?

At the core the provincial curriculum outcomes must still be addressed and achieved by the students. Although the Saskatchewan senior biology curriculum will soon be undergoing a renewal, the current required learning outcomes are likely similar to that found in other provinces and are expected to remain largely unchanged. The unit on human genetics covers several broad topics; our primary focal point will deal with the following learning objectives (Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 1992, pg 129):
 * 1) Explain the significance of Mendel’s experiments and observations, and the laws derived from them
 * 2) Explain the concept of independent events.
 * 3) Understand that the probability of an independent event is not altered by the outcomes of previous events.
 * 4) Describe Mendel’s experiments and observations.
 * 5) Describe the relationship between genotype and phenotype.
 * 6) Use the concept of the gene to explain Mendel’s laws.
 * 7) Describe the ideas of dominant and recessive traits with examples.
 * 8) Consider the value of the punnet square by creating examples of mono and dihybrid crosses.
 * 9) Explain the law of segregation.

While it is our goal to broaden the scope of the student experience beyond these limited concepts, student demonstration of learning of these outcomes is a requirement.

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.

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

Our project will consist of an online learning module, housed inside an LMS system (Moodle or Blackboard). The learning components will be wrapped around a problem-based scenario involving a relevant and authentic case of celebrity paternity. A variety of web-based collaborative tools such as discussion boards, wiki, shared online documents such as Google docs, mind-mapping/presentation tools such as Prezi, among other tools, will be available for students. Many of these tools will be available as options rather than mandated. Expectations will be for frequent group contact on the order of three to four times per week. Existing online simulations and other materials will provide the core instructional content.