Posted: September 13th, 2017

Teaching in online environments

Teaching in online environments

Objectives

•    To consider the affordances of online learning environments
•    To consider online teaching activity
•    To begin to explore the management of online tasks

Unit 3 Organisation and tasks
In unit 2 you thought about your insitutional settings and general considerations for online developments within those contexts. We have also already begun to think

about relationships between affordances and the type of teaching and learning we might want to achieve. Here we take that further. We will look at some of the

frameworks for practice in online contexts and the link between pedagogical thinking and implementation. This, of course, puts the spotlight on the teacher so we’ll

look at roles and what is termed ‘teaching presence’.

There are four sections including this introduction:

1.    Introduction
2.    Managed learning environments
3.    Teaching for effective learning: identifying Salmon’s five stage model
4.    Focus on online teaching ‘acts’ and the notion of teaching presence

________________________________________

Targetted reading for this unit addresses the following aspects of this topic:
•    features of online learning environments;
•    the challenges of online teaching;
•    frameworks for online teaching practice.

Our online explorations will take you to other learning environments and ask you to exchange your experiences of using these where relevant.

Three forum tasks invite you to:

•    discuss the features of online learning environments and share any experience of using / learning through these;
•    use Salmon’s model of online teaching and learning to analyse your own learning experiences so far;
•    use Anderson et al’s (2004) research to identify the concept of teaching presence in our course communications and share findings and thoughts.

liminary

To get you thinking about links between pedagogy and e-learning decisions about environments:

1.    Anderson, T. Toward a theory of online learning, in Anderson, T. and Elloumi, F. (2004) Theory and Practice of Online Learning, Canada: Athabasca University.

Available at http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/ch2.html. This identifies generic issues that we will be thinking about in this unit. Note the whole book is

available online http://cde.athabascau.ca/online_book/index.html and this site links to a related discussion board – a reflection on the changing nature of publishing

and academic communities.
2.    E-learning case studies from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningpedagogy/casestudies.aspx

I recommend you view one or more of the following clips and note how teachers talk about the rationale for their initiatives, particular affordances of the tools and

environments; interesting keywords or ideas that resonate with you:

•    Fermanagh College: ‘Explore new concepts’ – rural setting – expanding the classroom – web based response – filming presentations
•    University of Central England: ‘Solve problems’- Moodle (http://moodle.org/)- problem based learning scenarios
•    Kemnal Technology College: ‘Making learning active’ – LAMS (Learning Activity Management System http://www.lamsinternational.com/) – online collaborative

learning activities

Note: These case studies are part of a larger JISC report Effective Practice with E-learning Bristol: HEFCE from 2004. I have provided a direct link here for you to

download. It is lengthy but you can dip into sections and I’ll make reference to some useful content in the follopwing pages. Although this has now been archived by

JISC, and there is a more recent Effective Practice in a Digital Age (2009) it provides some useful snapshots of thinking as people move into using e-learning

environments and tools in different settings. It provides a broader view of e-learning including use of distributed technologies in classroom and blended learning

contexts – a reminder that we also aim to take this broader brushstroke (not simply distance learning) as part of our own explorations in this unit.
Unit 3 – Section 1: Online environments

There is a variety of terms to describe what are essentially web based learning environments. Other terms you come across are: virtual learning environments and

managed learning environments; web based course management systems; even ‘course in a box’ (Collis and Moonen, 2001: 78).

Blackboard is just one proprietary virtual learning environment, which has a long history. This and other similar tools such as the Open Source software Moodle, Cloud

options like Canvas, other newer commercial players like Desire2Learn, offer what they describe as an integrated system. Collis and Moonen (2001: 79) list the

following features of such systems:

Learner tools     Support tools

Web browsing:
•    accessibility
•    bookmarks
•    multimedia
Asynchronous sharing:
•    email; forums
•    newsgroups
Synchronous sharing:
•    chat; voice chat
•    whiteboard
•    applications sharing
•    virtual space; group browsing
•    tele conferencing; video conferencing
Student tools
•    self assessing
•    progress tracking
•    searching
•    motivation building
•    study skill building       Course tools:
•    course planning; course managing
•    course customising
Lesson tools:
•    instructional designing
•    presenting information;
•    testing; marking online; data
•    managing records; analysing and tracking
Resource tools
•    curriculum managing
•    building knowledge
•    team building; building motivation
Administration tools:
•    installation; server security
•    authorisation
•    registering; online fees handling
•    resource monitoring
•    remote access; crash recovery
Help desk tools
•    student support
•    instructor support

Each learning environment will clearly provide different realisations of these features. What interests us is how these are used to bring about learning. What is also

interesting is whether, given the fact that most VLEs provide similar individual components, one environment seems to facilitate the type of learning you wish to

achieve better than another. You’ve had experience of Blackboard in other course units and some of you will have used Moodle. We’ve been meeting in Adobe Connect and

in this unit we’ll meet in  Second Life, so we should have lots of experience to share.

Before we do, we’d like to think about frameworks for decision making.

________________________________________
Frameworks for decision making
A recommended read for this course unit is Collis and Moonen (2001) Flexible Learning in a Digital World. Their book centres much of its discussion around

institutional developments and impact of increased flexible learning initiatives but it does raise some interesting questions for us all, no matter what context we’re

in.

They make a case for increased flexibility of learning scenarios facilitated by technology. They suggest increased flexibility might be offered with respect to:

•    social organisation of learning
•    content
•    learning materials
•    interactivity
•    technology
•    language
•    location ( Collis and Moonen, 2001: 11-12)

Note, if you don’t have this text, you can also read their thinking in Collis, B., Vingerhoets, J. and Moonen, J. (1997). Flexibility as a key construct in European

training: experiences from the Telescopia Project. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28(3),199-217.

They argue that shifts towards more flexible learning opportunities see moves from control residing in the hands of the teacher/course designer towards more choice for

the learner in each of these dimensions. We are able to offer choices with respect to where, when and how learning takes place, but choice is a challenging construct

as we know from the different experiences that people are already discussing.

For the moment, we accept that Collis and Moonen establish the learner as a very central aspect of decision making, but of course this will both be within the choices

offered by the designer/ tutor, and framed by specific pedagogical thinking.

So what defines appropriate pedagogical approach in our subject areas?

Pedagogy is clearly seen in the types of learning activity we engage our learners in. Work has been done to create taxonomies of learning activity. Think back to the

chapter you read by Anderson (2004); he refers to the work of Prensky (2000, p. 56) suggesting that in general terms we learn:

•    behaviors through imitation, feedback, and practice;
•    creativity through playing;
•    facts through association, drill, memory, and questions;
•    judgment through reviewing cases, asking questions, making choices, and receiving feedback and coaching;
•    language through imitation, practice, and immersion;
•    observation through viewing examples and receiving feedback;
•    procedures through imitation and practice;
•    processes through system analysis, deconstruction, and practice;
•    systems through discovering principles and undertaking graduated tasks;
•    reasoning through puzzles, problems, and examples;
•    skills (physical or mental) through imitation, feedback, continuous practice, and increasing challenge;
•    speeches or performance roles through memorization, practice, and coaching;
•    theories through logic, explanation, and questioning.

Anderson claimed that all these activities are possible in e-learning environments. Also, think back to the Conole et al (2004) that you read in the last unit, this

has relevance here, too.

________________________________________
How we select and design learning activities which provide such learning opportunities will be informed by our position on an appropriate pedagogical approach with

respect to our particular subject areas. Our beliefs about teaching and learning (general and specific to our subject teaching) act as a strong filter to the way we

conceive methodologies and task approaches, and indeed how we will harness technology to achieve these.

If you are interested in the area of teacher beliefs, this is a huge area but good to start with Ertmer (2005) Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our

Quest for Technology Integration? ETR&D. 53(4): 25–39.

In terms of general thinking about pedagogical approach in online learning, four learning perspectives are identified in the JISC paper (p 13):

•    associative perspective
•    constructivist perspective (individual)
•    constructivist perspective (social)
•    situative perspective

________________________________________

Making connections

Refer to p 13 of the JISC report Effective Practice with E-Learning

1.    Which perspective(s) do you think might reflect the approach of this course unit?
2.    Which perspective(s) might reflect the approach of a second language learning course, a course in mathematics, a course in ICT, a teacher development course or

any other course in your own contexts?

________________________________________
So we have pedagogical thinking realised in the various task realisations. These pedagogical perspectives will serve to influence not only our approach but our

exploitation of the available technologies. And what of those technologies? We have to work within their affordances whether these be within our realms of tutor choice

or constrained by institutional directives, as we explored in unit 2. So this level of reflection is a required stage in thinking about how we are going to develop

more flexible learning initiatives in our own contexts. In the JISC report you downloaded, you will also find a general heuristic to think through the different

dimensions on p 49. Some prompts here:

•    What learning perspectives inform our understanding of second language learning, teaching ICT or science or other subjects or creating teacher development

courses, for example?
•    How do these perspectives influence the decisions we take as course designers with respect to the dimensions listed by Collis and Moonen?
•    How are those decisions also influenced by what we know about our learners: their needs, learning desires, the learner ecology?
•    How do we then exploit the technology and the elements of a managed learning environment as detailed by Collis and Moonen (2001: 79 reproduced above) to bring

about effective learning?
•    Can the environment provide all we want? Might we need to blend different solutions?

These are not simple questions to answer. Our decisions as course designers/teachers are not always experienced by our learners in the way we intend. Offering

increased flexibility and choice can make management of such learning experiences difficult and we’ll come to the tutor role next.

________________________________________
Unit 3: Section 1 tasks
________________________________________

An exploratory paper
I have linked here a preliminary paper that Diane Slaouti wrote with Richard Fay for a conference presentation. In this they begin to explore ideas about how different

tutors design their online courses in our own programme. This course unit is the subject of Diane’s reflections and Richard reflects on his Intercultural course. In

this research they are trying to identify the types of decision tutors take that result in courses looking and feeling quite different.

Hopefully the paper illustrates how different perspectives on the learning experience might lead to the use of the facilities of a particular learning environment in

different ways. You might use the framework adopted for thinking this through to reflect on your own learners, especially if you have experience of online teaching at

all.

slaoutiandfayeden2006.pdf

________________________________________

Exploring the affordances of managed systems
I am going to ask you to spend a little time thinking about learning within managed environments. You have all had some experience of one or more of our own different

tech-based course units (Blackboard, Moodle, wikis like this, or WordPress) and some of you are also currently having experiences in other tools, particularly MOOCs,

but also may be exploring newer tools like Canvas. Some of you are already making significant use of these tools in your own contexts.

We have already had some discussions in this area, but I hope that we can attach our discussions now to some of the literature.

The prompts for discussion here all revolve around affordances of different environments, remembering that affordances not only refer to the ‘substance’ or

characteristics of the tool, but are also perceived and “dependent not only on the physical capabilities of the actors, but also on their goals, plans, values, beliefs

and past experiences” (Chuang, 2008).

•    First of all, note your immediate reaction to Moodle, Blackboard, Second Life as spaces in which you like to be ‘present’ as a learner. Do you feel more at

home in a specific space? Are you able to say why?
•    Do you sense a preference for one over the others as a teaching space? If so why?
•    If you have experience of Moodle, Second Life, or other another system, tell us about how it is being used, your own thinking about pedagogical perspective,

and identify any particular strengths and weaknesses in the environment that allow you to realise or restrict your particular aims.
•    If you don’t have experience of developing online courses yourself, what differences/similarities in learning experience have you noted in the Blackboard

courses you have experienced with us so far? Try to identify if tools have been used differently; if course material is presented differently; if there is a sense that

topics and learning outcomes of a particular course seem to lead to different use of the environment by tutors; if differences seem to reflect different learning

perspectives on the part of the tutor(s). Don’t be afraid to critique. We will also come back to these thoughts when we look at the learner experience in more detail.

Post your ideas in Unit 3: Exploring the affordances of managed systems. As you’re posting your thoughts, relate them to ideas explored in this unit and any literature

you have found interesting. Use these to support your personal views.
Unit 3 – Section 2: Teaching in online environments

In the paper Diane wrote with Richard, they described themselves as ‘tutors-as-course-designers’. They deliberately reflected on this as not all online teaching

contexts encapsulate this dual role. Online teaching may involve you in setting up your own course content, designing tasks, thinking about interactions between

learners and tutors. It might, however, be simply a matter of managing those interactions i.e. the online tutor might be employed to teach but not necessarily design

the online course itself. Increasingly there are job opportunities of this kind, and the Open University is one example of an institution which for the most part

employs tutors who facilitate courses written by other people. In the world of MOOCs, this is also a role, but often a volunteer one.

________________________________________

Online tutoring – identifying roles and challenges
Before we look at the nature of online tutoring in greater depth, spend a little time thinking back over some of your observations so far, either your own experiences

as tutors on courses, or as participants on course units either at Manchester, or elsewhere. Your thoughts may be random at the moment – this doesn’t matter. We will

look at specific roles presently.

•    Are the roles of the online language teacher/teacher educator similar to those in the face-to-face classroom?
•    What demands do you think are made on the online tutor that may be different from the face-to-face context?

You can add to/modify your thoughts as we proceed.
________________________________________
The literature variously refers to the online teacher as e-tutor, e-moderator, e-facilitator. Whatever the label, online teaching is characterised in much of the

literature as a moderating role, and this relates most often to computer conferencing, that is managing interactions in conferencing tools such as discussion boards,

although increasingly that role is changing and tutors may be needing to think about their roles in synchronous spaces.

We’ll look at two specific areas of research into this aspect, that of Gilly Salmon formerly of the UK Open University and now based in Australia, and the work of

Garrison, Anderson and colleagues who work in Canada.

Their books are on our recommended reading list and here there are links to the latest versions available through MyiLibrary:

Garrison, D. R. (2011) E-Learning in the 21st Century. Taylor & Francis. http://lib.myilibrary.com?ID=310536

Salmon, Gilly. (2012). E-Moderating. Taylor & Francis. http://lib.myilibrary.com?ID=336371

________________________________________
I am going to refer you to different chapters of Salmon’s book but firstly her five step model.

Salmon argues that readiness to achieve higher level learning concepts (we’ve mentioned notions of deep and surface learning for example already) is premised on a

conscious awareness of learner needs in the online environment and the role of the tutor in facilitating stages of development and interaction. She puts forward a five

step model of these stages:

This image is taken form this web page where you can find further explanation of the different stages:

http://www.gillysalmon.com/uploads/1/6/0/5/16055858/1729423.jpg?1368410189

Individual access and the ability of participants to use CMC are essential prerequisites for conference participation (stage one, at the base of the flights of steps).

Stage two involves individual participants establishing their online identities and then finding others with whom to interact. At stage three, participants give

information relevant to the course to each other. Up to and including stage three, a form of co-operation occurs, i.e. support for each person’s goals. At stage four,

course-related group discussions occur and the interaction becomes more collaborative. The communication depends on the establishment of common understandings. At

stage five, participants look for more benefits from the system to help them achieve personal goals, explore how to integrate CMC into other forms of learning and

reflect on the learning processes.

To gain an understanding of the model and the research it is based on read chapter 2 in the book in myiLibrary (link above)

Searching on the Springer site for Gilly Salmon I also found: Competences for online teaching, a special report. You might like to consider how far you feel competent

with the range of competences suggested in this article.

________________________________________

Reflecting on progression through Salmon’s five step model
Reflect on your journey through this course unit so far.

•    At which stage do you think you are currently at?
•    Can you identify personal transitions through the stages to this point?
•    Can you identify tasks, tutor activities, interactions with your peers that are either identifiable with those stages or that facilitated a move to a higher

stage?

Contribute your own analysis to the forum — Unit 3 — Task 2: Your course journey so far. This is the type of analysis that might inform your eventual approach to

your assignment part 3. As you come to approach this task on the Forum, have a look at what others have contributed and try to build on the ideas of others.

Unit 3 -Section 3: Teaching presence within computer conferencing

Salmon’s framework provides a schema that reminds online tutors of the need to account for the earlier transitional stages of online learning, without which engaging

meaningfully with content may become secondary to struggles with environmental factors. Salmon also provides a series of example tasks and activities for use in online

learning in Part 2.

Further research into teaching ‘acts’ has been provided by the team of Garrison, Anderson, Rourke and colleagues. Their research examines the interactions between

tutors and learners in text-based conferencing as a specific site of collaborative learning. It is, therefore, concerned very specifically with how online tutors work

within asynchronous communication forums, facilitating learner engagement with both content and peers so that they reach higher levels of critical enquiry (cf Salmon’s

stage 5).

The full framework is explained in their book E-learning in the 21st Century: a framework for research and practice, although you can find many of their ideas in

articles published at around the same time as the book.

The framework provides one approach to assessing quality of learner interaction where such interaction is central to an online course. Diane has also been involved in

some cross disciplinary research which applied this approach to analysing discussion boards in TESOL teacher education, engineering and nursing studies. We’ll take a

look at the data from this project together.

The work is based on an assumption that developing a community of enquiry is fundamental to learning contexts in which knowledge construction is an underpinning

paradigm. They also make a specific case for text-based conferencing as possessing specific attributes that “facilitate critical discourse and reflection” (2003: 26).

The three dimensions of the framework are:

•    Cognitive presence which is “the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse in a critical

community of enquiry” (Garrison et al, 2001:11).
•    Social presence which is the “ability of participants in a community of enquiry to project themselves socially and emotionally, as real people (ie their full

personality) through the medium of communication being used.” (Garrison et al, 2000:94).
•    Teaching presence which is “the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realising personally meaningful and

educationally worthwhile learning outcomes.” (Garrison et al, 2001)

Here we will focus on one dimension, teaching presence, to understand how Anderson et al identify the types of contributions that seem to support learners.

________________________________________

To develop an understanding of the components of teaching presence, read:

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R. and Archer, W. (2001) Assessing teacher presence in computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks

5(2): 1-17.

If you have the book, you’ll find chapter 7 on teaching presence: Garrison, D. R. and Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st Century: a framework for research and

practice. Abingdon, Routledge Farmer. In the online resource it is chapter 6.

________________________________________
You will have identified the three categories of teaching presence activity:

•    Instructional management (design & organisation)
•    Building understanding (facilitating discourse – social)
•    Direct instruction

As we were carrying out the research, Diane and colleagues drew up a grid to help code the discussion board postings and this is attached here. In fact, the team did

similarly for all three components and, although we are concentrating on teaching presence here, the full table is provided.

________________________________________

Putting the framework into action

How does this framework help us to understand effective practice and how do we then apply this to our own practice? In many ways Salmon’s checklists are reflected in

the coding categories, though this research aims to exemplify the practice in a more concrete way.

Analysing discussion boards can lead to identification of strategies that seem to impact or enhance the learning experience. Understanding that the three areas are

fundamental to achieving this is important to us as tutors. Analysing boards can also reveal interesting differences between different tutor approaches, which those of

you who have had more distance experience are likely to have come across. It is also clear the there must be a relationship between task design and how learners

participate, and these correlations have yet to be explored in detail.

For the moment let’s take a look at some tutor messages from two of our Masters courses, which have been anonymised.

Extracts from forum postings

So, if you are interested in applying the framework briefly, try some coding for yourself. A coding grid is provided after each extract.

1.    Identify whether a message is predominantly one of the following or whether it has multiple objectives:
o    Instructional management (design & organisation)
o    Building understanding (facilitating discourse – social)
o    Direct instruction
2.    Identify the discourse that supports your decision.
3.    Reflect on any characteristics that are difficult to code; or try to identify how messages may be coded in the same way, and yet have different ‘feels’. What

accounts for this?

________________________________________

If you try this out, add observations/queries/reflections to the discussion board: Unit 3 — Task 3: Exploring teaching presence.

When it comes to your assignment, you might of course try some analysis of our own forum messages, or if you are doing any online activities involving discussion

boards, try using the approach to look at your own tutoring approach. This may not be something you have time for at this stage, but if you do, it would be interesting

to hear about your experience or any emerging thoughts.

________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT Out of this research, Diane and colleagues in other Schools have tried to dig down into the global TP categories, to identify more specific stratgegies, and

I thought I would share that with you here. For research purposes, this is actually more complex to administer than Anderson et al! The more fine-grained qualitative

codes are, the more time consuming the analysis. However, the aim is to begin to identify differences in individual’s style and handling of discussions that is

accounted for in Anderson et al’s framework. There are actually clear links here with Salmon’s e-moderating practices. This is simply an additional element of the

picture should you be interested in community of enquiry research.

Rationale for development of teaching presence

Revised template

________________________________________
Unit 3 Synchronous session

Because at Manchester we are going to be running a day seminar on virtual worlds in education on Friday 14th March UK times: 9.30-16.00, the way that the end of unit

meetings will work will be a bit different. You are invited to attend this event online, or if you are in Manchester, there might be some spaces for you to attend

face-to-face. I will also run some introductory sessions to Second Life leading up the event and I will also offer follow-up sessions on the Sunday (16th).

See the Announcements in Canvas for arrangements.

I have created a separate page to introduce to aspects of virtual worlds.

Here are a number of papers that you might like to look at in advance of the sessions:

Deutschman, M., Panichi, L. and Molka-Danielsen, J. (2009) Designing oral participation in Second Life: A comparative study of two language proficiency courses.

ReCALL, 21(2), 206-226.

Duncan, I., Miller, A. and Jiang, S. (2012) A taxonomy of virtual worlds usage in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6): 949:964.

Lee, M. J. W., Dalgarno, B. & Farley, H. (2012). Editorial 28(3): Preface to the Special issue. In M. J. W. Lee, B. Dalgarno & H. Farley (Eds), Virtual worlds in

tertiary education: An Australasian perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28 (Special issue, 3), iii-vii.

http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet28/editorial28-3.html. This is a preface to a special issue of this journal containing articles on a number of different subject

areas.

Liou, H-C. (2012) The roles of Second Life in a college computer-assisted language learning (CALL) course in Taiwan, ROC. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(4):

365-382.

Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 79-103.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂