Category: edci339

After reading the first chapter of “A guide to making open textbooks with students.”（Mays, E. (Ed.). 2017）, I agree with many of the authors’ ideas and I think many of them should be implemented.
There are many parallels between “open” and “distributed” learning, especially in “asynchronous” learning. As we completed the Digital Equity and Perspectives Pod projects, we found that many of the barriers to learning for students in many cases had nearly the same impact on “distributed asynchronous” and “open” learning. I think this has to do with the fact that they both use a lot of online platforms or technologies in their instruction. However, there are many differences in the online platforms they use. One of the most obvious differences is that the online platform for “distributed” learning is usually controlled by the instructor, who plays the role of supervisor. This is like an instructor creating or controlling a website that students can view, use, or comment on, but cannot change the information on the site. The difference is that the online platform used for “open” learning is controlled by both the student and the instructor. Just like the “Word press” we use, students and teachers each create their own websites and can modify the information on their own websites. In the article, the authors also explain that “learning management systems (Canvas, Moodle, Blackboard, etc.) generally lock students into a closed It perpetuates a surveillance model of education in which the instructor is able to consider metrics that are not available to students; and it presupposes that all student work is disposable (because all assignments are imported into a new course in the next semester shell are removed when a new course is introduced the following semester)” (Mays, E. (Ed.), (2017)).

The platforms, materials, or online technologies that students use for “open” learning are collectively referred to as Open Educational Resources (OREs), and OREs are an important element of “open pedagogy.” As an educational resource, OREs offer students more freedom than other educational resources, but they are also cheap, if not free, to use. The author explains this in his article as well; he suggests that many textbooks, especially college textbooks, are so expensive that many college students are unable to complete assigned readings because they cannot afford them (Mays, E. (Ed.), (2017)). As a college student, I empathize with this; in the required courses I have experienced, many of the textbooks required for the courses cost around $100 and some exceed that price. The reason why OERs are so cheap is to fulfill the proposition that “higher education should be equally accessible to all”; and this proposition is one of the most important goals and ideas of OERs. In my opinion, the promotion of this proposition will give help to many students, and students will not have to worry about the high price of textbooks. While tuition may still be a large number, the dramatic reduction in textbook prices has been enough to alleviate the financial strain faced by most students. It is safe to say that the advent of OER has provided a pathway to success for many students who are facing financial pressures.

Not only that, but in my opinion, if the OER proposition does gain widespread popularity, it will inevitably change the current form of education, and OER will likely become the most common teaching method. So the potential of OER is undoubtedly very great, but it still needs more exploration and practice.

Reference:

Mays, E. (Ed.). (2017). A guide to making open textbooks with students. Rebus Community.  Chapter 1: Open Pedagogy : https://press.rebus.community/makingopentextbookswithstudents/chapter/open-pedagogy/

Part 1: Evidence and Reflection on My Learning

Outcome 1：Describe the potential of human-centered learning in distributed and open learning contexts

Throughout the course, I did some activities and readings that developed in meeting this outcome.

In Topic 1, I discuss the article by Vaughan, Garrison, and Cleveland-Innes, “Teaching and Learning in Blended Learning Environments. Creating and Sustaining Communities of Inquiry” (Vaughan et al., 2013). The author discusses and researches blended education and lists its requirements and basic principles for the teaching and learning environment. I also agree with the authors who mention that ‘simply adding online components does not necessarily meet the threshold for blended learning as defined here’ and ‘the key is to avoid at all costs simply adding activities and responsibilities until the course is completely unmanageable and students have no time to think about the meaning and engage in discussions to gain common understanding’ (Vaughan et al., 2013).
In my posting 1, I mentioned that blended learning models are often present in the learning we experience. It has principles and concepts about encouraging connections between students and teachers, active learning, and a focus on time on task are even more used in many courses educationally, even those in other instructional models. So I think blended education may become a mainstream form of education.

My pod member agrees with me, but he believes that this model of teaching is not applicable to everyone, especially the education of children.

In my Tpoic 2, “Teaching Online – A Guide to Theory, Research, and Practice.“ (Major, C. H.,2015). The authors present a taxonomy chain of online course structures and MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) and offer a perspective on how to distinguish fully online courses. I was interested in the author’s discussion that “the most accurate approach is to call courses that never meet onsite fully online, and courses that have some onsite meetings and some activities via the Internet hybrid courses.”(Major, C. H.,2015) This phrase was misunderstood. In fact, both the authors and I believe that even fully online courses require a certain number of course activities and online meetings to help the instructor keep track of the learners’ progress. And I believe that having more course activities is also effective in increasing the popularity of such courses.

Shallow and Keifer, members of my pod learning group, agreed with me and offered their thoughts on the definition of MOOCs and course activities.

In my topics 3 and 4, “ A guide to making open textbooks with students”(Mays, E. (Ed.). 2017) and “ Defining OER-enabled Pedagogy” (Wiley, D. & Hilton, J. 2018) , both readings mention OER and OER, and their views on OER and OER are very similar. In particular, in the reading “A guide to making open textbooks with students” in Topic 3, the authors state that “higher education should be equally accessible to all”. I agree with this statement, and I think that the emergence and promotion of OER can effectively help more students to reduce their burdens and thus better complete their studies.

My pod study group members Lucas and Shallow agreed with me and provided their own perspectives on OER and the open learning approach in the comments section.

Unlike topic 3, the reading for topic 4, “ Defining OER-enabled Pedagogy” (Wiley, D. & Hilton, J. 2018), refers to ‘renewable assignments ‘ as well as ‘disposable assignments’. I also agree with the authors in the article that ‘disposable assignments’ usually take a lot of time and effort from students and teachers, but lose their value after completion, while ‘renewable assignments ‘ can provide lasting benefits to the broader community of learners. I also believe that ‘renewable assignments’ can help learners become more engaged in their work and increase their interest in the course. My study group member Shallow made a similar point in her discussion of the topic, and I commented on her point as well.Throughout the course, I did reading activities as well as pod projects to help me achieve this outcome development.

After completing these activities, I learned many new terms such as blended learning approaches, open learning environments, distributed learning environments, open pedagogy, OER, MOOCs, and human-centered learning. I also learned about the structure of online courses, the principles of blended learning, and the differences between open and distributed learning.

This knowledge is important because it is certainly important for a pedagogue to understand the various teaching methods and their pros and cons. And as a learner, I can be more clear about the conditions and abilities needed for various learning methods, such as online courses that require technology platforms to support them; likewise understanding their benefits and drawbacks can help me better plan my future courses and choose the right teaching mode for me.

Outcome 2&3：Explore and engage with current literature on the distributed and open education movement. Critically reflect on and articulate concepts around modality, pedagogy, and access, including distributed and open learning theory, online and open learning history, privacy laws, online learning communities, open research, and open data.

Throughout the course, I did reading activities as well as pod projects to help me achieve this outcome development.

In the Topic 1 discussion, my pod learning team members Keifer and Shallow explored how to ensure that students’ privacy is not violated in the context of learning through big data. Although I did not select that post for discussion, I commented on their post and expressed my belief that more nuanced bills and more reliable regulators may be needed for control.

In the discussion of Topic 3, “ A guide to making open textbooks with students”(Mays, E. (Ed.). 2017),  the author describes the Open Learning Approach and OER as “equal access to higher education for all”. I agree with the author’s view and I think this is a way for more students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to succeed. Lucas, a member of my pod study group, had the same discussion and commented on my points and gave his opinion.

In the discussion of Topic 3, the authors also suggest that “learning management systems (Canvas, Moodle, Blackboard, etc.) typically lock students in a closed state It perpetuates a supervised education model in which the instructor perpetuates a supervised model in which the instructor is able to consider metrics that are inaccessible to students; it assumes that all student assignments are disposable (because all assignments are removed when a new course shell is introduced the following semester).” (Mays, E. (E.), (2017)). This is a good write up of the difference in technology platform requirements between a distributed education environment and an open education environment, also as an online course. I also mentioned in the posting that there are many similarities between distributed and open education environments. In particular, distributed asynchronous learning and open learning have almost the same impact on students in many cases, and the differences between them are harder to detect than in other teaching environments. This is also reflected in our pod project.

In the OUTCOME 1 section, I have mentioned the thoughts and discussions the authors and I had in TOPIC 1 , and 2  about the principles of blended learning, and the structure of online courses and MOOCs. “Teaching and Learning in Blended Learning Environments. Creating and Sustaining Communities of Inquiry” (Vaughan et al., 2013), and “Teaching Online – A Guide to Theory, Research, and Practice.“ (Major, C. H.,2015). My instructor for this course also gave comments on my posting and pointed out many errors in my understanding of the article.

By completing these activities, I learned about the difference between distributed and open education, the principles of blended learning, and the structure of online courses and MOOCs.

This knowledge was important because they allowed me to understand the intent of some of the arrangements that many instructors make in the teaching process and how these arrangements can help students. I also understood how to better integrate various learning methods.

Outcome 6: Practice digital, networked, and open literacies in support of learning about distributed and open learning

Throughout the course, my group members and I communicated online through various software to achieve the development of this outcome.

We post links to our own posts and projects through the Mattermost software group channel and receive feedbacks on our projects from instructors.

After that, we found out that our group members are all from China, so we communicate with each other through WeChat when we are working on our project.

By completing these activities, I learned that it is equally possible to have discussions and complete group projects through online communication platforms and social networking software.

What I learned was important to me because it greatly reduced the amount of time we spent traveling for offline meetings, and we were able to schedule our meetings more freely.

Reflection: After completing this course, I found many inadequacies in myself. First, after the comments I received on my postings, I usually read them and then did not respond, which I think limits my communication with others. This is a problem I need to be aware of and correct. Secondly, I sometimes misunderstand some of the sentences that appear in the posts, which I think is probably due to my lack of patience in reading the posts. I often discuss the article as I first think after reading it, but I do not read it several times to fully understand the meaning of each sentence, which is also a problem worth noting. Finally, I think I learned a lot through this course, including the principles of various learning environments and how they are structured. Not only that, but I also learned how to use wordpress, how to post my own posts through it, and how to complete projects, which I think will be very useful knowledge and skills for my future courses and for my future work.

Part 2: Showcase

Link to updated version of the post: https://dennish.opened.ca/showcase/

Link to the original version of the post：https://dennish.opened.ca/topic-3-open-pedagogy/

Description of the changes made along with reasons why the changes were made：

In the first paragraph, I have added to the author’s viewpoint and corrected some grammatical errors.

Added my thoughts on OER and what it stands for and discussed how their promotion has helped students.

Some personal perspectives are added at the end, discussing the impact of OER promotion on open pedagogy and the potential of open pedagogy.

Reference：

Major, C. H. (2015). Teaching Online – A Guide to Theory, Research, and Practice. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvic/detail.action?docID=3318874 (pp. 76-108)

Mays, E. (Ed.). (2017). A guide to making open textbooks with students. Rebus Community.  Chapter 1: Open Pedagogy : https://press.rebus.community/makingopentextbookswithstudents/chapter/open-pedagogy/

Vaughan, N. D., Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. AU Press. https://read.aupress.ca/read/teaching-in-blended-learning-environments/section/ac46044a-ecde-4fc4-846d-8c17fe8bf712

Wiley, D. & Hilton, J. (2018). Defining OER-enabled Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(4).

After reading the article ” Defining OER-enabled Pedagogy” (Wiley, D. & Hilton, J. 2018), I found many interesting points, the most impressive of which was the introduction of the concept of ‘renewable assignments’ by the author. The opposite of ‘renewable assignments’ is ‘disposable assignments’, and most of the assignments we experience in our courses are ‘disposable assignments’, exemplified by the essay. As a university student, writing a paper is a common thing. The author mentions that the biggest problem with ‘disposable assignments’ like essays is that they take a long time for the student to complete, and a long time for the teacher to read and grade each one; but when it’s all over, neither the student nor the teacher cares about the essay anymore (Wiley, D. & Hilton, J. 2018). In fact, this is not all, as essays are often ‘disposable assignments’ that take up a lot of points in a course, and they are usually dues at the end of a course, which leads many students to pay less attention to other assignments; and students mostly choose to work on one of them after most of the course has been taught. This leads to the fact that students’ papers are mainly focused on one part of knowledge or even one point of knowledge, with little involvement in other parts or points of knowledge. While there are many courses that choose to open up the submission of papers at the beginning of the course and encourage students to submit them repeatedly, the results are not as good as one might expect.

‘Renewable assignments’ can be the perfect solution to these problems. Instead of completing their first drafts directly, students can gradually write and refine their assignments based on what they have learned. More importantly, their assignments have value even after the course is over, rather than being ignored or deleted. As the authors say, “providing lasting benefits to the broader community of learners” (Wiley, D. & Hilton, J. 2018).

In addition to that, the four parts of the test mentioned in the article are interesting. Although they seem to be just four simple questions, they do directly test the extent to which the course conforms to the OER pedagogy. Even though they do not directly help the teaching of OER pedagogy, they provide a good foundation and a start, and they can directly inform the teachers and learners about what OER pedagogy is.

Reference

Wiley, D. & Hilton, J. (2018). Defining OER-enabled Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(4).

After reading Mays, E. (Ed.). (2017). After the first chapter of ‘A guide to making open textbooks with students’, I agree with the authors’ ideas.
There are many similarities between “open” and “distributed” learning, especially in “asynchronous” learning. As we complete our Digital Equity and Perspective pod projects, we often find that many of the barriers to learning for students have almost the same impact on “distributed asynchronous” and “open” learning. I think this has to do with the fact that they both use a lot of online platforms or technologies in their instruction. However, there are many differences in the online platforms they use. One of the most obvious differences is that the online platforms for “distributed” learning are usually controlled by the instructor, who acts as a supervisor. It is like a teacher creating or controlling a website that students can view, use, or comment on, but cannot change the information on the site. The difference is that the online platform used for “open” learning is controlled by both the student and the teacher. Like the “Word press” we use, students and teachers each create their own websites and can modify the information on their own websites. The authors also explain in the article, “The Learning Management System (Canvas, Moodle, Blackboard, etc.) generally locks students into closed It perpetuates a surveillance model of education in which the instructor It perpetuates a surveillance model of education in which the instructor is able to consider metrics that students are not given access to; and it presupposes that all student work is disposable (as all of it will be deleted when the new course shell is imported for the next semester).” (Mays, E. (Ed.), (2017)).

The platforms, materials, or online technologies that students use for “open” learning are collectively known as Open Educational Resources (OERs), and OREs are an important element of the “open pedagogy”. As an educational resource, OREs provide students with more freedom than other educational resources, but they are also very inexpensive or even free to use. The author also explains this in his article; he suggests that many textbooks, especially college textbooks, are so expensive that many college students are unable to complete assigned readings because they cannot afford them (Mays, E. (Ed.), (2017)). I can empathize with this as a university student; in the required courses I have experienced, many of them required textbooks that cost around $100, and some of them exceeded that price. The reason why OERs are so inexpensive is to fulfill the proposition that “higher education should be equally accessible to all”; and this proposition is one of the most important goals and concepts of OERs.

Reference:

Mays, E. (Ed.). (2017). A guide to making open textbooks with students. Rebus Community.  Chapter 1: Open Pedagogy : https://press.rebus.community/makingopentextbookswithstudents/chapter/open-pedagogy/

After reading the reading material on the second topic, I turned a lot of my previous understanding of some course models upside down, and MOOCs (massive open online courses) are definitely one of them. My previous understanding of MOOCs was that they were simply online courses for the masses that could be taken by anyone with the required equipment. And that’s actually true, but that’s only the understanding of the registration aspect of it. So the previous understanding of MOOCs is just one of the structural elements that make it up. But the article only states that there are at least two different forms of MOOCs —— xMOOCs and cMOOCs, and I am curious about other possible forms of MOOCs and their characteristics.

After that, the author mentions what he considers to be a way to distinguish between fully online courses and hybrid courses in the section ‘Quantity. The author argues that “the most accurate approach is to call courses that never meet onsite fully online, and courses that have some onsite meetings and some activities via the Internet hybrid courses.” (Major, C. H.,2015). I don’t agree with him because, in my opinion, even a fully online course needs to be designed with activities that correspond to the course. The purpose of this is to help learners test their learning and, more importantly, to ensure that what is taught is mastered and not misunderstood by learners. So it makes sense to call a course with some live sessions a hybrid course, but a fully online course also requires some activities over the Internet.

The chain of classification of the online course structure presented in the article is also useful, as it divides the online course structure into Enrollment, Amount, Timing, Platform, and Pathway, and goes through each of them. If I wanted to become a teacher, it would be of obvious help in my initial understanding of the online course structure, and I could even use it to attempt my first online course. It will also help me understand the advantages and disadvantages of online courses as I learn and can help me better choose the mode of teaching I wish to do, both inside and outside the university. It even helps me in my future work, for example when promoting products, where the structure of our courses is also applicable. We can think of the consumer as the learner, the company or factory as the instructor, and the product as the knowledge to be taught to the learners. The product is designed to teach the learners. The online course structure is used to promote the product.

Finally, I would like to know how online teaching and learning, especially MOOCs, can help learners use what they have learned? Just because learners know a piece of knowledge doesn’t mean they can use it in their own lives. In face-to-face and other online instruction, the instructor usually designs projects or activities to help learners do this. However, MOOCs are a way to teach to more learners, and many learners do not have time or are unable to participate in activities, so how can educators solve this problem?

References

Major, C. H. (2015). Teaching Online – A Guide to Theory, Research, and Practice. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvic/detail.action?docID=3318874 (pp. 76-108)

After reading the first chapter, I recognized the concept and principles of blended learning mentioned in the “Conceptual Framework” (Vaughan et al., 2013). After understanding this, I was surprised to find that blended learning has become a frequent occurrence in our learning. Especially during the epidemic, although we are in an online course, many of the concepts and principles of blended learning emerged. For example, encouraging connections between students and teachers, active learning, and an emphasis on time on task. And in the time since the end of the epidemic, many of the concepts and principles of blended learning can still be found in the teaching of the various courses we have experienced. Therefore, I think that as technology develops, blended learning models will become more and more frequent in students’ learning and will gradually become one of the most mainstream teaching methods.

However, I do not particularly agree with the statement in the article that ‘principles are essential for translating theoretical frameworks into practical strategies and techniques’ (Vaughan et al., 2013). In my understanding, the author is using ‘principles’ as the basis for practical strategies and techniques, both of which should be constructed based on principles if the theoretical framework is to be realized. But in my opinion, technical support should be the most important. Since the core of blended learning is the integration of face-to-face and online learning activities, many of these activities require technical support. In other words, the implementation of blended learning is dependent on a certain learning support platform, and a mature learning platform is an important factor that can ensure the effectiveness of blended learning and the application of the principles.

In addition, the article mentions that ‘simply adding online components does not necessarily meet the threshold for blended learning as defined here’ (Vaughan et al., 2013). However, if we look at the description of the ‘principles’ at the end of the article, the technology in practice is built on the ‘principles’ and this is an act of adding online components. Perhaps what the authors are trying to say is that online components need to be added according to the ‘principles’. But if there is a situation where one online component is not enough to satisfy all the principles, then in order to satisfy the principles, more components are bound to be added, and after the new online components are added, students will definitely need to perform various different activities on different components, which is difficult and likely to cause confusion. This in turn is in some conflict with the author’s mention that ‘the key is to avoid at all costs simply adding activities and responsibilities until the course is completely unmanageable and students have no time to think about the meaning and engage in discussions to gain common understanding’ (Vaughan et al., 2013). So, in my opinion, these concepts that appear in the article are confusing and they are all in conflict with each other.

In the end, I would like to ask, do you think that blended learning will become the most mainstream way of teaching and learning? Is the blended learning approach equally applicable to early childhood education or job training?

Reference:

Vaughan, N. D., Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. AU Press. https://read.aupress.ca/read/teaching-in-blended-learning-environments/section/ac46044a-ecde-4fc4-846d-8c17fe8bf712