Part B Artefact

PART 2

Design an artefact which demonstrates clearly how it will enhance adult literacy and numeracy. Describe the teaching issue/topic the artefact could be used for and the learners who would best engage with it.

In terms of the TEC Learning Progressions (2008), the coterie of learners as outlined previously would typically be at approximately Step 2-3 in the  literacy strands of Reading with Understanding, and Speaking to Communicate, while usually at somewhat higher levels for Listening with Understanding, and Speaking to Communicate. The tool itself, however, would not have to be specific to this particular type of coterie, but could be adapted to suit  a wide range of learner coteries. Assessment would be broadly within Initial, Formative and Summative categories, within TEC established practice as supported and recorded by standard assessment forms and with student engagement per prescribed intervals with the TEC online Assessment Tool. Accordingly, then, assessment would encompass ongoing student self-assessment, both tutor-student and student-tutor assessment , and facilitated peer assessment. Evidential assessment would also be part of the process as reflected in student progress in terms of being better able to execute and participate in both implicit and explicit  literacy functions pertaining to the requirements of the module and tasks at hand.

The tool in this case would, as mentioned, be a shared interactive Facebook page created by the tutor or administrator, closed to all but the tutor or students or any other approved persons. This would enable all information posted to the site to be seen and accessed only by those so approved, but postings and alterations to the site content would be possible only via the tutor who could  therefore monitor site content.  While some students may find this an inhibiting element (Malhotra 2013),  I would consider this necessary for safety considerations.

This Web 2.0 option means there is only one site to develop, and of course would be free. It would be fully adaptable and allow text, colour, images, audio and video. The coterie would collaborate to research and develop a nominated theme or topic. If circumstances permitted, the students could decide on a topic through consensus. Pages developed could include such elements as questionnaires, personal feedback, progress reports and assessments, in addition of course to postings addressing the nominated theme. Students’ individual blog sites, including their personal Facebook pages if desired, would also be able to be linked and accessed from the class site. This would allow them to brainstorm, share information, or demonstrate some of their work to peers in order to elicit feedback. It would also allow them to mutually support and motivate without necessarily having to channel material and communications through the class site.

The artefact would be comprised of blended learning elements. Primarily it would be structured to allow the majority of participation to take place from the students’ own locations and in their own time as a tool to help circumvent travel and communication issues attendant to a widespread rural district. But occasional face-to-face tuition could occur where and when feasible. For instance, ideally  the course would commence with a face-to-face session to help establish rapport between tutor and learners – to help create a ‘community of learners’. As well as introductions, it would enable the tutor to ensure the group participants were all familiar with the structure and aim of the task underpinning the course itself, and that students were au fait with the workings of the artefact itself with the necessary hardware required in hand. This initial session could be used, too, as an opportunity for the students to collectively decide on a project of their choice. For the purposes of this exercise, though, I have provided one myself in order to delineate how the sub-tasks of the project could be allocated and addressed by the students. The essence of the project, though, would be to construct an information site on a specific topic incorporating diverse digital elements and using a Facebook format.

Once the topic had been established, students could break into pairs or small groups and with newsprint and felts, say, brainstorm ways in which they think the topic could be presented most effectively, and to prioritise the nature of information to be shared as regards the main theme. The groups could then share conclusions, reach a reasonable degree of consensus, and allocate sub-tasks between themselves. They may even choose to continue to work in their sub-groups online. Essentially students would then continue their participation online, but occasional further face-to-face support sessions could occur where feasible. Ideally the group would come together at course end to share and celebrate their efforts. Formative and summative (both informal and formal) assessments would occur as appropriate.

Let us assume that the artefact decided on was a Facebook  site promoting a  (fictional) long weekend kapa haka festival at Ahipara/Ninety Mile Beach being hosted by the local Muriwhenua Kapa Haka troupe - recent winners of the North Island regional kapa haka final. Information the site would convey would be festival programme content, geographical directions, accommodation and camping options, location features and sightseeing points of interest, food and additional entertainments available, brief history of kapa haka, significance of the individual waiata and actions that comprise the total kapa haka performance, local tikanga and history, and the like. The end result would be an interactive Facebook site that could be made available on a open basis whereby members of the public wishing to find out more information pertaining to the kapa haka festival could go online and access a wide range of relevant material.

Describe the learning and teaching approach you used to design the artefact in relation to your philosophy about learning and teaching with technology for LLN education.

My philosophy regarding the application of digital technologies to adult literacy tuition centres around the premise that, while digital technologies can be highly effectively employed in this field, primary outcomes derive from the structure, content, context and instructional strategies of the lesson itself. In other words, the digital technologies are the medium, not the message.  However, having said that, there can be a nevertheless  tangible element present also of the Marshall McLuhan dictum  that in many situations the medium is the message, too (McLuhan, 1964) whereby use of the medium (for whatever reason) may be an instructional experience in itself. Basically I consider that most effective results will be achieved with these technologies through application of appropriate balance and context within a student-centred framework of what the intended primary learning goals actually are. In this respect, it is therefore imperative that appropriate initial assessment establish these goals. The extent to which a programme incorporating online technologies may help achieve those goals (and whether digital learning may be more effective than more traditional learning) may then be evaluated. As Jenkins (2006) asserts, too, for this reason, if digital learning is to be maximised, it is essential that online elements be incorporated into any learning programme at the initial design phase, and not just be ‘bolted-on’ considerations.

Web 2.0 technologies, with their emphasis on sharing, networking, user production, and the like, then, may serve all manner of useful personal imperatives. But in terms of identified learning goals, their usefulness can only be measured to the extent these media help achieve those goals. Simply being engaged with (and perhaps even spectacularly proficient with) these technologies may be meaningless in terms of specific student learning aspirations if engagement with these technologies is not necessarily advancing fulfilment of the explicitly identified learning priorities.

Digital Philosophy

(Version II)

My philosophy regarding the application of digital technologies to adult literacy tuition centres around the premise that, while digital technologies can be highly effectively employed in this field, primary outcomes derive from the structure, content, context and instructional strategies of the lesson itself. In other words, the digital technologies are the medium, not the message.  However, having said that, there can be a nevertheless  tangible element present also of the Marshall McLuhan dictum  that in many situations the medium is the message, too (McLuhan, 1964). Basically I feel that most effective results will be achieved with these technologies through application of appropriate balance and context within a student-centred framework of what the intended primary learning goals actually are. In this respect, it is therefore imperative that appropriate initial assessment determines just what exactly the individual learning goals of the students actually are. From those, the extent to which a programme incorporating online technologies may help achieve those goals (and whether digital learning may achieve those goals any better than more conventional, less resource-intensive learning) may be ascertained. As Jenkins (Martin & Madigan, 2006, p.170) asserts, too, for this reason, if digital learning is to be maximised, it is essential that online elements be incorporated into any learning programme at the initial design phase, and not just be ‘tacked-on’ considerations.

According to Bonk and Reynolds , as cited in  Ally (2009. P.1), ‘online learning must create challenging activities that enable learners to link new information to old, acquire meaningful knowledge, and use their metacognitive abilities.’ Ring and Mathieux , as cited in Ally, (2009, p.1), suggest that online learning should have high authenticity, high interactivity, and high collaboration These precepts can hardly be argued with, but equally, in some circumstances the sheer ‘practice & usage’ element of digital technology utilities (with all the implicit literacy and numeracy that is part of that process) will constitute valid and valuable learning in itself. In many cases, then, several learning goals may comfortably co-exist and together constitute all manner of highly effective embedded literacy and numeracy tuition. Creative and positive engagement with digital learning and social media technologies  can lead to many and varied forms of up-skilling - both intended and intended - that can potentially build marketable skills in terms of future possible workplace and educational situations.

Web 2.0 technologies, with their emphasis on sharing, networking, user production, and the like, then, may serve all manner of useful personal imperatives. But in terms of identified learning goals, their usefulness can only be measured to the extent these media help achieve those goals. Simply being engaged with (and perhaps even spectacularly proficient with) these technologies may be meaningless – given the stated intentions of specific learning aspirations – if engagement with these technologies is not necessarily advancing fulfilment of the explicitly identified learning priorities.

References:

Ally, M. (2009) Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.) The theory and practice of online learning (2^nd ed., pp. 3 – 31). Edmonton, Canada: AU Press, Athabasca University.

Bonk, C. J., & Reynolds, T. H. (1997). Learner-centered Web instruction for higher-order thinking, teamwork, and apprenticeship. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 167-178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Jenkins, M. (2006).  Supporting students in e-learning, in Martin, A., & Madigan, D. (Eds.). Digital Literacies for Learning. London: Facet Publishing.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: Mentor.

(Martin’s Question – Version II)

How can we overcome the barriers that impact the effective use of on-line tools in adult learning?

Surmounting the barriers that impact on the effective use of on-line tools in adult learning is an ongoing issue with digital learning. These barriers will naturally vary from situation to situation and individual to individual. But for a tutor working in, say, a low socio-economic, widespread relatively isolated and rural district, with limited communication networks and electronic hardware infrastructure, then  most of the main initial barriers simply revolve around lack of access to the digital wherewithal. Many households – even if they are able to afford and maintain the hardware, may simply not be within the broadband and cell phone broadcast and reception areas. Additionally, many students seeking  literacy/numeracy assistance may often be seeking that assistance because of poor school experiences, often precipitated by the underlying economic and social issues listed above. For many learners in this category, school will have been one of the few places where  some degree of interaction with the online media was possible, so low attendance rates and limited in-class engagement will have stymied opportunities to build expertise and confidence in these areas.

Overcoming these considerable barriers, therefore, is a matter of the educators doing what they can, when and where they can, and hoping incremental gains will somehow accumulate.  For instance, for quite a few students in this type of situation, gaining a learner’s driving licence will be considered a major achievement. Learning goals will therefore focus on improving those literacy/numeracy elements necessary to help achieve that goal, and this may include basic IT up-skilling in order for the student to engage with the online Road Code practice test.

As indicated, all manner of infrastructure and socio-economic issues may affect the student’s  capacity to access computer time – particularly if additional literacy issues have to be addressed as well. However, where these types of mainly infrastructure related issues are not pressing, then a range of strategies can be adopted to address barriers specific to digital learning (as opposed to learning barriers common to learning in general):

- Attempt to incorporate digital learning structures in the initial design stages of any programme, as opposed to ‘bolting’ them on to existing programmes (Jenkins, in Martin & Madigan, 2006, p. 170).

- Attempt to create as much as possible a ‘community of learners’, where students feel sufficiently engaged and valued that there is a correspondingly high motivation to interact with and support fellow students, as well as promoting positive tutor/students relations.  (Grandzol & Grandzol, as cited in Brinthaupt, T., et al, 2011, p. 7.).

- Minimise learning anxiety by ensuring programming and formatting is suited to the computer literacy level of the  learners concerned. (Chen & Bryer, 2002.)

 - Relate the appropriateness and effectiveness of the intended format to the learning needs of the individual concerned. (Kanuka, 2008, p.2).

- Ensure that students have very open lines of communication to the tutor/s through provision of direct personalised email addresses (or free-call phone numbers) in order that  students are able to contact the tutor/s on a one-to-one basis, should they prefer, regarding enquiries or concerns. Having to do so only through the course online links may be inhibiting for the student for fear of perhaps being seen to be a bit of a ‘goof’ by other students.

- Where appropriate, without divulging the initial source, respond to those individual student concerns with feedback to the whole group. Chances are, if one student has those concerns and anxieties, others do too.

- Where possible and appropriate, tutors should attempt to integrate face-to-face tuition sessions with the distance online learning components. Often, a few minutes ‘live’ demonstration, exampling or individual student support may cut through anxieties and technical shortcomings that have been unnecessarily inhibiting the student’s progress.

- For the tutor to provide consistent and regular feedback, together with ongoing formative assessment of how the students are generally progressing. Distance learning has many potential advantages, but, as the term suggests, for the student, ‘distance’ learning can leave the student feeling just that – ‘distant’ - and somewhat isolated or removed.. Whatever means that can alleviate that perception are therefore to be pursued where and when possible.

Jenkins, (Martin & Madigan, 2006, p. 170), though, stresses the importance of tackling e-learning programmes at the initial point of programme design.

References:

Brinthaupt, T., Fisher, L., Gardner, J., Raffo, D., & Woodard, J. (2011). What the best online teachers should do. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132 USA. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from:

http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/brinthaupt_1211.htm

Chen, B and Bryer, T. (2002) Investigating Instructional Strategies for Using Social Media in Formal and Informal learning. The International review of research in Open and Distance learning.

Retrieved April 18, 2014, from:

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/rt/printerFriendly/1027/2073

Jenkins, M. (2006).  Supporting students in e-learning, in Martin, A., & Madigan, D. (Eds.). Digital Literacies for Learning. London: Facet Publishing.

Kanuka, H. (2008). Understanding e-learning technologies-in-practice through philosophies-in-practice. The theory and practice of online learning, pp. 91–118. Edmonton, Canada: AU Press, Athabasca University.

(Frank’s own question – Version II))

What factors should be taken into account when deciding whether or not - or to what extent - to incorporate Web 2.0 tools and online learning into adult LLN tuition?

As with all types of learning, the main factors determining just what methodology and resources are to be harnessed will be governed by the intended learning outcomes. To do otherwise would mean that the teaching/learning would be necessarily random and probably not particularly relevant to the students’ true learning needs. Establishing agreed learner goals and priorities, then, will be the first step in establishing the form and content of the programme itself, and whether or not online interactive learning and tools should be a part of that process. Ally (2009), among others, also recognises the need for appropriate student ‘support’. Where feasible, this support may take the form of the tutor and learners being able to occasionally meet and interact face-to-face. Despite the many learning tools available through digital technology, few would deny the effectives of face-to-face tuition in certain circumstances. It is another matter, though, if online learning is the only option, in which case  if, all things being equal, given that it may not necessarily be the most effective learning context, then it just becomes a matter of making the most of the situation.

While a distinction is often drawn between the accessing of what may be described as the more ‘passive’ aspects of online information and sites, and participation in the more ‘active’, or ‘interactive’, online tools  such as Blogging, Skyping, Tweeting or the myriad of other options available, both have respective strengths.. The latter of course are the ones normally more associated with Web 2.00 technologies, but  the former may be seen as equally valid learning online resources. Inasmuch as even relatively basic activities such as accessing Wikipedia articles or newspaper sites, or practising online road code quizzes or Army or Police practice entry tests, involve key literacy/numeracy activities  (Reading for Comprehension, Using Numbers to Solve Problems, Interpreting Shape and Space, and the like), they nevertheless still require a certain amount of interactivity and can prove valuable bridging activities into more complex digital and social media domains, in addition to addressing immediate learning goals.

While digitally based social learning is usually centred around group learning (Chen and Bryer, 2002, p. 2), it can equally legitimately be utilised in 1:1 tuition. Again, the appropriateness and effectiveness of this format will depend on the learning needs of the individual concerned. (Kanuka, 2008, p.2.) However, as mentioned, the decision to incorporate digital and online technologies into the learning programme will be determined by the establishing of agreed learning goals, which will in turn determine the appropriateness or otherwise of incorporating such technologies. In this, goals may legitimately overlap inasmuch as it may be considered desirable to concentrate on improving specific numeracy skills and awareness. And where the learning activities will also generally be increasing students’ facility with the technologies, the student will be correspondingly facilitated  into more effective independent learning.

While initial and formative assessments will help establish just what in fact the learning goals are, and from that then how may they  best be advanced, other considerations of a more practical nature may also enter the equation:

- Will the desired technological and reliable net access facilities actually be available and able to be maintained for the duration of the learning programme.

- Does the tutor have the necessary personal and pedagogical skills to facilitate and deliver the course outcomes – particularly where the class may not necessarily have high degrees of self-motivation. (Paechter, as cited in Ally, 2009, p. 16.)

- As discussed by Chen and Bryer (2002, p. 5), will there be cyber-security and privacy issues that may compromise the course activities.

- If it is a group situation, will the individual participants be at sufficiently homogenous skill levels so as not to impede group activities.

And underlying the decision as to whether – and to what extent - to incorporate digital technologies into an individual learning programme will be the fundamental question asking if this type of learning will actually achieve more than use of the less resource-intensive non-online  activities in terms of delivering the desired learning outcomes.

References:

Ally, M. (2009) Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.) The theory and practice of online learning (2^nd ed., pp. 3 – 31). Edmonton, Canada: AU Press, Athabasca University.

Chen, B and Bryer, T. (2002) Investigating Instructional Strategies for Using Social Media in Formal and Informal learning. The International review of research in Open and Distance learning. Retrieved April 18, 2014, from:

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/rt/printerFriendly/1027/2073

Kanuka, H. (2008). Understanding e-learning technologies-in-practice through philosophies-in-practice. The theory and practice of online learning, pp. 91–118. Edmonton, Canada: AU Press, Athabasca University.

The Continuing Importance of Teacher Involvement in the Online Class

(Version III – please ignore previous versions)

In Brinthaup et al’s paper, What the best Online Teachers Should Do (2011), there is a lot of emphasis not so much on the online elements but simply the qualities and activities that all teachers – regardless of contexts or resources – should do. They cite such sources as Grandzol and Grandzol (p. 7), who contend that ‘the most essential factor to a successful online education experience is creating a community of learners where the quantity and quality of interactions with peers and faculty foster student engagement’. The learning environment will also promote student-to-faculty interaction as the pre-eminent dynamic, but where student-to-student interaction closely follows. They also cite Clark-Ibenez & Scott (p. 7) who aver that students should ‘feel a personal and emotional connection to the subject, their professor, and their peers’, particularly with regard to the fact that the online learner requires a greater degree of both self-discipline and self-motivation as compared to students in more traditional learning situations.

Brinthaup et al go on to assert that, while such elements as online messaging, discussion forums, blogs and chats are all useful tools to help promote student engagement and      subsequent inculcation of the relevant subject matter, they should nevertheless still just be seen as opportunities to build the over-arching requirement of establishing a community of learners which fosters the primary dynamic of providing the forum in which students can learn from each other as well as through tutor-directed means.

Similarly, Ladyshewsky (2013, p. 19) highlights the desirability of promoting productive discourse in the learning environment, citing Overbaugh & Nickel:  ‘The task of facilitating discourse is necessary to maintain learner engagement and refers to focused and sustained deliberation that marks learning in a community of inquiry.’ Ladyshewsky (2013, p. 19) also cites Shea, Li, & Pickett,  who point to a package of classroom dynamics that in their opinion facilitate positive discourse, including the teacher: ‘identifying areas of agreement and disagreement; seeking to reach consensus and understanding; encouraging, acknowledging, and reinforcing student contributions; setting the climate for learning; drawing in participants; prompting discussion; and assessing the efficacy of the process’.

Ladyshewsky (2013, p. 18) also references another study exploring factors impacting on learning quality. ‘The investigators found that instructor mentoring and pacing of the course content, were the most important variables linked to learning quality’ (Peltier, Schibrowsky, & Drago, 2007). Here, the teacher’s ability to establish sufficient social and teaching presence is seen as vital in furthering the over-arching requirement of facilitating creative discourse in the context of the online lesson.

Jenkins (Martin & Madigan, p. 162) though, stresses the importance of tackling e-learning programmes at the initial point of programme design. He contends that the majority of e-learning developments are supplementary to face-to-face teaching, which means that support elements are best planned as part of the curriculum design or else risk not being fully developed. There is often the prospect therefore of the teacher being unable to exploit the full potential of e-learning applications when they are merely ‘bolted-on’ to more conventional and traditional modes of learning, as opposed to those planned from the outset. Jenkins (p. 170) accordingly calls for a more holistic approach in the facilitation of e-learning, where the various learning elements are integrated in a way that maximises the full potential of e-learning methods and resources within the context of promotion of positive intra-classroom interaction (both between teacher/students and student/students), and in terms of the overall learning goals of the class.

References:

Brinthaupt, T., Fisher, L., Gardner, J., Raffo, D., & Woodard, J. (2011). What the best online teachers should do. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132 USA. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from:

http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/brinthaupt_1211.htm

Jenkins, M. (2006).  Supporting students in e-learning, in Martin, A., & Madigan, D. (Eds.). Digital Literacies for Learning. London: Facet Publishing,

Ladyshewsky, R.( 2013). Instructor Presence in Online Courses and Student Satisfaction.    International Journal for the Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning, Volume 7 | Number 1 Article 13, 1-1-2013.Curtin University, Perth. Retrieved March 30, 2014, from:

http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1377&context=ij-sotl

The Continuing Importance of Teacher Involvement in the Online Class

(Version II)

In Brinthaup et al’s paper, What the best Online Teachers Should Do (2011), there is a lot of emphasis not so much on the online elements but simply the qualities and activities that all teachers – regardless of contexts or resources – should do. They cite such sources as Grandzol and Grandzol (p. 7), who contend that ‘the most essential factor to a successful online education experience is creating a community of learners where the quantity and quality of interactions with peers and faculty foster student engagement’. The learning environment will also promote student-to-faculty interaction as the pre-eminent dynamic, but where student-to-student interaction closely follows. They also cite Clark-Ibenez & Scott (p. 7) who aver that students should ‘feel a personal and emotional connection to the subject, their professor, and their peers’, particularly with regard to the fact that the online learner requires a greater degree of both self-discipline and self-motivation as compared to students in more traditional learning situations.

Brinthaup et al go on to assert that, while such elements as online messaging, discussion forums, blogs and chats are all useful tools to help promote student engagement and      subsequent inculcation of the relevant subject matter, they should nevertheless still just be seen as opportunities to build the over-arching requirement of establishing a community of learners which fosters the primary dynamic of providing the forum in which students can learn from each other as well as through tutor-directed means.

Similarly, Ladyshewsky (2013, p. 19) highlights the desirability of promoting productive discourse in the learning environment, citing Overbaugh & Nickel:  ‘The task of facilitating discourse is necessary to maintain learner engagement and refers to focused and sustained deliberation that marks learning in a community of inquiry.’ Ladyshewsky (2013, p. 19) also cites Shea, Li, & Pickett,  who point to a package of classroom dynamics that in their opinion facilitate positive discourse, including the teacher: ‘identifying areas of agreement and disagreement; seeking to reach consensus and understanding; encouraging, acknowledging, and reinforcing student contributions; setting the climate for learning; drawing in participants; prompting discussion; and assessing the efficacy of the process’.

Ladyshewsky (2013, p. 18) also references another study exploring factors impacting on learning quality. ‘The investigators found that instructor mentoring and pacing of the course content, were the most important variables linked to learning quality’ (Peltier, Schibrowsky, & Drago, 2007). Here, the teacher’s ability to establish sufficient social and teaching presence is seen as vital in furthering the over-arching requirement of facilitating creative discourse in the context of the online lesson.

Jenkins (Martin & Madigan, p. 162) though, stresses the importance of tackling e-learning programmes at the initial point of programme design. He contends that the majority of e-learning developments are supplementary to face-to-face teaching, which means that support elements are best planned as part of the curriculum design or else risk not being fully developed. There is often the prospect therefore of the teacher being unable to exploit the full potential of e-learning applications when they are merely ‘bolted-on’ to more conventional and traditional modes of learning, as opposed to those planned from the outset. Jenkins (p. 170) accordingly calls for a more holistic approach in the facilitation of e-learning, where the various learning elements are integrated in a way that maximises the full potential of e-learning methods and resources within the context of promotion of positive intra-classroom interaction (both between teacher/students and student/students), and in terms of the overall learning goals of the class.

References:

Ally, M., Foundations of educational theory in T. Anderson  Ally Foundations of educational theory for online learning chp01 of Anderson.pdf /http://autonline.aut.ac.nz/bbcswebdav/pid-2881092-dt-content-rid

4842194_4/institution/Papers/169005/Publish/Ally%20Foundations%20of%20educational%20theory%20

Brinthaupt, T., Fisher, L., Gardner, J., Raffo, D., & Woodard, J. (2011). What the best online teachers should do. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132 USA. Retrieved March 31, 2014, from:

http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/brinthaupt_1211.htm

Jenkins, M. (2006).  Supporting students in e-learning, in Martin, A., & Madigan, D. (Eds.). Digital Literacies for Learning. London: Facet Publishing,

Ladyshewsky, R.( 2013). Instructor Presence in Online Courses and Student Satisfaction.    International Journal for the Scholarship ofTeaching and Learning, Volume 7 | Number 1 Article 13, 1-1-2013.Curtin University, Perth. Retrieved March 30, 2014, from:

http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1377&context=ij-sotl

The Continuing Importance of Teacher Involvement in the Online Class

The Continuing Importance of Teacher Involvement in the Online Class

In Brinthaup et al’s paper, What the best Online Teachers Should Do (2011), there is a lot of emphasis not so much on the online elements but simply the qualities and activities that all teachers – regardless of contexts or resources – should do. They cite such sources as Grandzol and Grandzol (2006) who contend that ‘the most essential factor to a successful online education experience is creating a community of learners where the quantity and quality of interactions with peers and faculty foster student engagement’. The learning environment will also promote student-to-faculty interaction as the pre-eminent dynamic, but where student-to-student interaction closely follows. They also cite Clark-Ibenez & Scott, (2008) who aver that students should ‘feel a personal and emotional connection to the subject, their professor, and their peers’ (p. 7), particularly with regard to the fact that the online learner requires a greater degree of both self-discipline and self-motivation as compared to students in more traditional learning situations.

Brinthaup et al go on to assert that, while such elements as online messaging, discussion forums, blogs and chats are all useful tools to help promote student engagement and      subsequent inculcation of the relevant subject matter, they should nevertheless still just be seen as opportunities to build the over-arching requirement of establishing a community of learners which fosters the primary dynamic of providing the forum in which students can learn from each other as well as through tutor-directed means.

Similarly, Ladyshewsky (2013, p. 19) highlights the desirability of promoting productive discourse in the learning environment, citing Overbaugh & Nickel (2011).  ‘The task of facilitating discourse is necessary to maintain learner engagement and refers to focused and sustained deliberation that marks learning in a community of inquiry.’ Ladyshewsky (2013, p. 19) also cites Shea, Li, & Pickett (2006),  who point to a package of classroom dynamics that in their opinion facilitate positive discourse, including the teacher: ‘identifying areas of agreement and disagreement; seeking to reach consensus and understanding; encouraging, acknowledging, and reinforcing student contributions; setting the climate for learning; drawing in participants; prompting discussion; and assessing the efficacy of the process’.

Ladyshewsky (2013, p. 18) also references another study exploring factors impacting on learning quality. ‘The investigators found that instructor mentoring and pacing of the course content, were the most important variables linked to learning quality’ (Peltier, Schibrowsky, & Drago, 2007). Here, the teacher’s ability to establish sufficient social and teaching presence is seen as vital in furthering the over-arching requirement of facilitating creative discourse in the context of the online lesson.

Jenkins (Martin & Madigan, p. 162) though, stresses the importance of tackling e-learning programmes at the initial point of programme design. He contends that the majority of e-learning developments are supplementary to face-to-face teaching, which means that support elements are best planned as part of the curriculum design or else risk not being fully developed. There is often the prospect therefore of the teacher being unable to exploit the full potential of e-learning applications when they are merely ‘bolted-on’ to more conventional and traditional modes of learning, as opposed to those planned from the outset. Jenkins (p. 170) accordingly calls for a more holistic approach in the facilitation of e-learning, where the various learning elements are integrated in a way that maximises the full potential of e-learning methods and resources within the context of promotion of positive intra-classroom interaction (both between teacher/students and student/students), and in terms of the overall learning goals of the class.

.