Category: Critical Inquiry

Posted on

OTL 301- post 6 – wrapping things up.

This course was an effective review of the COI framework and an opportunity for me to critically reflect on some of my teaching practices, but also, what I have learned and experienced as good, and bad, teaching/instructional practices in online environments. Based on the fact that I was very familiar with the COI framework and associated research, I did not experience have much shift in my thinking on this material. I think and feel there are some positive aspects, and especially for learners in these courses that may never have been exposed to the COI framework

Similarly, the WordPress platform is something I am familiar with. It can be an effective platform for this type of delivery. I was also able to read and interact with past and current learners. This is also one of the tools that I may consider in future learning opportunities. I have utilized it in the past to post a developed curriculum, as well as support the community engagement that occurred to develop the course.

The more effective learning strategies within this series of courses, for me, were the ones that encouraged and facilitated self-reflection. There are simply not enough courses that facilitate critical self reflection within one’s own professional practice – in this case instructing/teaching/facilitating online.

Posted on

OTL 301 – post 5

  • Did you engage in each of the phases of the critical inquiry process?

I would answer, somewhat, to this question. There are certainly some phases that are more represented than others.

  • Were you able to resolve any problems or dilemmas?

I didn’t face much for dilemmas, other than the fact that my research and education pathway has resulted in some skepticism of the research papers and research results within this field.

  • What might you do differently in a future course?

There isn’t anything in particular that I can think of in this particular course. The dynamics (personal and within each course) are different. Courses also have different proposed outcomes and needs.

  • How might you engage with your students to ensure that they are working through the entire inquiry process?

There are a variety of ways in which students can be engaged. In an online course this can included through the course platform itself – e.g. discussion posts. Then there are options for email, as well as social media. There is also the option for phone calls, or video calls (e.g. Skype). All of these can assist in facilitating students through the entire inquiry process.

  • Do you think that working through this course in an open platform like WordPress helps to encourage reflective learning

Somewhat, yes. I would imagine for some learners engaging in this course there may be a large learning curve in navigating WordPress. Fortunately, I had quite a bit of familiarity with the program/platform so did not struggle with it. I did learn through the most recent process, a part of WordPress that I did not know.

Posted on

OTL 301 post 4

I have a colleague who teaches a combination of online and face-to-face courses. She teaches within a Masters of Counselling program, with a specialization in Art Therapy. I was quite curious to learn more about how online courses are conducted in a profession requiring much face-to-face daily work. She shared that this is a conversation that comes up regularly in their course work, which is both synchronous and asynchronous.

She is quite familiar with the COI framework and has had discussions with the authors of the book/theory. Similar to my own thoughts, she shared that the principles of COI are not complex, however, not always simple to enact in day-to-day practice. She shared that considering the professional area she is instructing in, creating open, honest, and safe climates for discussion is critical.

We also discussed the theory within online education research suggesting that there is ‘no significant difference’ between the outcomes in online and in-person learning. Both of us have conducted much of our education online and tend to disagree with this notion. There are differences between the two delivery methods, and we have both experienced differences in our own learning outcomes – especially when it comes to the principle of self-direction and motivation.

We also share some skepticism with components of the COI framework and wonder why and how some of the principles are not all that different than ‘good instructing’ in a classroom environment? We were also curious about the link between the COI framework and much of the research and work currently being done on open educational resources and how that might affect our field. This, along with continued growth of Massive Open Online courses (MOOCs).

Lastly, we also discussed the notions of ‘netiquette’ and how many courses have various guidelines for ‘forum’ postings – e.g. a limit of 350 words. Then the all-to-common practice of learners simply responding to posts with “I couldn’t agree more…” or “I really appreciate your post…” – and the result is that there is not a lot of critical engagement or inquiry into the materials, or into critical reflection on practice. This combined with some institutions offering online education starting to appear as if they are mere credential-mills.

These are a few of the challenges this field will need to continue to engage in and reflect upon.

Posted on

OTL 301 – post 3

In my professional work on a day-to-day basis, I work with a team that is building learning modules focusses on ‘cultural safety in healthcare’. In 2015, all the health authorities in BC (including the newly formed First Nations Health Authority- FNHA) and the Ministry of Health signed the Declaration of Commitment to Cultural Safety and Cultural Humility in BC Healthcare services.

Designing learning opportunities and outcomes has been an interesting process. For example, here are two and associated activities.

  1. Learners will develop an understanding of the their own views of the term “culture”.
  2. Learners will be able to define the term ‘cultural safety’.

The first activity we engage in is having students write down on a sticky note, or in an electronic environment on a platform, what their definition of ‘culture’ includes. We then read through them.

The next part of the activity includes an introduction to the ‘cultural iceberg‘.  The final part of the exercise is organizing posts onto the cultural iceberg and seeing what is missing, and where the majority of posts were located on the iceberg.

The exercise for cultural safety then includes sharing an appreciation for how diverse and wide ‘culture’ is as a term and how can practitioners ensure their practices are cultural safe and respectful.

This is highlighted through the two basic principles of cultural safety: (1) its basis lies in critical self-reflection of practitioners, and (2) cultural safety is determined by clients/patients in healthcare, not the practitioners.

This is then discussed through the principles of dialogue circles, such as those highlighted by critical educator Dr. Stephen Brookfield.

Posted on

OTL 301 Post 1 – experience

 

Several decades of online course experience have led to many positive, and many, not so positive experiences. I would suggest a grouping of positive experiences as instructor engagement and a feeling that they are to assist in achieving/facilitating student success and learning. The not-so-positive experiences are related more to a feeling that instructors were simply putting in their time.

Respectful and interested engagement with learners seems to be a pretty darn effective practice. This can cross various boundaries such as cultures, genders, ages, or otherwise. Generally, what I have tried to engage in to improve my experiences is to engage in respectful feedback processes. Pointing out where I feel shortfalls have been in course design, facilitation, engagement, or evaluation.

Posted on

OTL 201- Post 5

 

Much of the concepts that impact my thoughts on student engagements and retention, come more from my decades of experience in online education as a student, facilitator/instructor and curriculum development. My first online/distance course, I completed in 2004/05. My Bachelor degree was completed largely at TRU-OL. My Masters degree was completed entirely online at Athabasca U. I’m now currently completing a doctorate degree in Education, specializing in online education and educational technology.

Through these many courses I’ve seen good strategies, and many not so good strategies. Effective engagement becomes a combination of instructor strategies and student learning styles. There is no one blanket policy that will work for every situation. Considering this in light of the rapid expansion of international student programs also has an impact on this.

I still have quite a few questions regarding what the role of a faculty member is in student retention. I understand the important role of an instructor in engagement with students; however, the role of faculty in retention seems to raise a few ethical questions – e.g. marking and evaluation of students.

Posted on

otl 201_post 2. presencing the social

In thinking about my intro post, I can foresee that it might both increase and decrease social presence – or maybe, the hypothesized ‘benefits’ of social presence. For example, seeing my picture, and assuming that I am a white male might  generate a negative reaction for some, which would still imply ‘social presence’ – however, is it good?

One of the challenges I see with theories of ‘social’ presence in the online learning world is that ‘social’ presences online and the tools to generate that presence, change rapidly. For example, a student (or instructor) of the millennial generation may have multiple social media platforms that could broadcast their presence.

Or, many academics have multiple published papers and books, that in turn generate a ‘social presence’. Sometimes when theories seem to fit too easily, it might mean there are some potential weaknesses. Like other theories, there are both potential advantages and disadvantages to adopting various theoretical paradigms such as COI, and related theoretical components, such as ‘social presence’.

 

Posted on

Post 4, feeding back, feeding forward?

  1. Are there any gaps between your practice of offering feedback to students and what Hattie recommends?

Yes, significant. Much of my instructing experience has included isolated rural Indigenous communities. There is some reference to ‘cultural’ differences in the Hattie excerpt. However, using the three engagement questions, sometimes the ‘goal’ for students I have worked with and for in the past is to just be present at the session. In many cases, so many barriers have been imposed upon students to attend opportunities for learning and expanding credentials. For example, in many northern communities (Indigenous or non-Indigenous) a large barrier is access to good and reliable childcare. These types of links and connections to ‘learning’ are potentially lost when ‘scientific’ and ‘statistical’ measures start permeating throughout education (e.g. links to ‘big data).

There is a place for the types of analysis that Hattie explores. However, there are often more humanized and day-to-day realities that also need to be incorporated into these types of discussions.

2. In what ways can you improve the effectiveness of the feedback that you provide for your students?

Maybe this will be considered somewhat contradictory, or oppositional thinking; however, I think the effectiveness of the feedback that I can provide to students will be greatly improved by seeking more feedback on my performance and methods of instruction. For example, long-time educator and research Stephen Brookfield advocates for a Critical Incident Questionnaire.

This asks some important questions of students and provides vital feedback to instructors/facilitators. This type of tool also facilitates opportunities for students to self-reflect on their own learning process. This, in many cases, can be an even more important ‘feedback’ process than receiving from an instructor.

Curiously, the etymology of feedback (Online Etymology Dictionary) suggests that ‘feedback’ as a process, such as “information about the results of a process” is suggested to not have been common until the 1950s. Prior to that it had to do with electronics.

Posted on

Post 3, simplistic metaphors and stereotypes?

I am an instructor for a course on interpersonal communication and conflict resolution with the following learning objectives.

  1. What are the intended learning outcomes of the course? Do the learning outcomes reflect high-level cognitive skills or low-level skills (pay attention to the verbs)?
  • Improve interpersonal communication by understanding the role of nonverbal communication and culture in how messages are sent and received, as well as providing students with skills and strategies to communicate assertively and turn conflict into collaboration;
  • Understand their own problem-solving and decision-making styles, and the impact these styles may have on others;
  • Learn group problem solving and decision making strategies;
  • Learn how to motivate others by managing their own behaviour and communication style;
  • Understand the cumulative impact of stress, and learn how to manage their reactions under tension, pressure, and stress.

2. How is student learning assessed in the course (essays, quizzes, journals, machine-gradable tests, portfolios)?

This particular course has a combination of assignments, classroom participation and a final exam.

3. In what ways are the intended learning outcomes and the assessments aligned or not?

A combination of alignment and complete non-alignment. For example, having a final exam on a course focussed on interpersonal communication and conflict resolution is not very aligned.

_ _ _ _ _

Rather than commenting on the other aspects of this suggested post – I was quite struck by some potential stereotypes in the videos provided for this module. For example, it seemed remarkable to me that the young woman was the ‘deep’ learner and what appeared to be a young male, and potentially a visible minority at that. I am curious whether the video producers were aware of the potential stereotypes.

Furthermore, there are interesting metaphors used repeatedly in this module and in the videos, with the potential for ethnocentric views. It seems simplistic to suggest that a learner is a ‘shallow’ or ‘surface’ learner because they are a “C” student simply looking to get through a course. This seems to be far more a reflection of the education system, than the learner. Focussing on the learner, has the danger of potentially pathologizing each individual learner, as opposed to exploring how different learners learn in different ways.

_ __ _ _ _ _

Part of the pondering I highlight here is related to the fact that as of late, I instruct the above course to 100% International students and face-to-face with Moodle support and foundation. In the previous semester, I had 15 students from the Punjab area of India, 5 students from other parts of India, 1 from S. Korea, 1 from Rwanda, 1 from Croatia, 4 from the Philippines, and 2 from Mexico.  The range of cultural differences in interpersonal communication styles, along with conflict resolution – was astounding at times.

Therefore, some reflection is required in linking learning objectives with the actual students, and respecting their differences and similarities. This would be part of a “student-centred” approach, no?