Exploring online teaching #ONL221

This is the last blog post I’ll write during this course of ONL221. I will try to summarize my experience as a part of ONL and what I’ll bring with me from now on. I’ll use the following questions to guide my reflection forward during this text. Firstly, our group was joined by PBL 10 during the fifth and last topic. We had met earlier during reflection week, and both groups suggested getting back together again. The members of PBL10 were an excellent addition to our group and added different perspectives to our discussions. I appreciated that the relaxed feeling in our PBL-group didn’t get lost with additional members; it just added more energy. I would recommend arranging topic five this way in the future as it was nice comparing our experiences.

What are the most important things you learned through your engagement in the ONL course? Why?

When deciding to join ONL, it was mainly to collect the hours for my pedagogical portfolio. Moreover, I was nervous about an English course and unsure it would be for me. So I did some short research and decided that I needed a challenge. And what a challenge it has been trying to find time for synchronous and asynchronous work, meetings with the PBL-group, and teaching students. The most important thing I’ve learned from ONL is the power of working as a team. I wouldn’t have finished this course if it wasn’t for PBL11, and I couldn’t have learned as much about all topics as I have. It’s been a necessary reminder about how it is to be a student, being confused over instructions, and keeping motivation up. It’s a luxury to listen to some of the best speakers on the topics we have gone through. Also, getting tips on articles to read and discussing them with other teachers has been rewarding. I will undoubtedly miss this community after ONL221 but will not miss the feeling of being stressed 😉

How will your learning influence your practice? What will you do as a result of your involvement in ONL? Why?

A few weeks have passed since our last meeting when writing this blog post. It’s just now as I can reflect on how I will use lessons learned in my teaching. I can already see that I’ve added some learning activities in my courses that start in August but as I wrote in my previous blog post I’ll start by analyzing the courses and see what online activities can be added to enhance learning for my students—as most of my classes are campus-based. As future social workers I want my students to start thinking and try to solve problems with the help of others and not just focus on passing an exam. I think that many of the elements of the ONL-course can be useful to prepare them for their future outside of the university walls.

So I would like to thank you all for the ONL experience, most of all I would like to thank the members of PBL11. Without all of you, this wouldn’t have been the same!

Best wishes, Johanna

Reflection on topic 4: Design for online and blended learning.

By Johanna Elfgren

On June 12, 2022

In Topic 4: Design for online and blended learning, Uncategorized

This blog post describes my thoughts about topic four; design for online and blended learning. As written in my last blog post, designing meaningful assignments for online learning has been challenging in my department during the pandemic. This spring, we have been moving back to campus, with mixed feelings from teachers and students, many students and teachers have appreciated working/studying from home and its possibilities. When a couple of months have passed, it’s clear that online learning is in the past in many ways. During this topic, exploring how online and blended learning can be used without being an emergency solution has been interesting.

Hodges, C. et al. (2020) write, “Online learning carries a stigma of being lower quality than face-to-face learning, despite research showing otherwise.” I recognize that view on online learning from my department of social work. I’ve heard many colleagues, this semester, saying it is nice to be back in the classroom with human interaction instead of black screens on Zoom. If that’s the comparison between online and campus education, it’s not strange that they prefer teaching on campus. I wish I had known about the resources from Open university earlier, as it would have been helpful during previous semesters. But as written before, it’s been good to reflect for future practice.

In our group work, we decided to design personas and what they need as students. We used the nine dimensions mentioned by Hodges, C. et al. (2020) to determine the course design most suitable for the student. Even though it’s not possible to make unique designs for every student in a course, I felt that it’s a good idea to reflect on the course design according to some group character traits to see if the course needs adjusting. Using the questions in the document “Planning the student’s journey” (Open University, 2021) could be helpful in the same way as the personas to map out how to adjust the course.

Many of our student personas were best suited for blended learning.

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2018) describe three different blended learning models with other solutions for combining online and traditional classroom teaching. The benefits of blended learning are opportunities for collaboration at a distance, increased flexibility in their studies, increased interaction between students and students/teachers, enhanced learning and engagement, and students learning to be virtual citizens.

I would like to use blended learning to enhance learning outcomes in the campus courses I teach. For example I could use the blended face-to-face driver model, mentioned in Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2018). In this model, a substantial portion of classroom time are replaced by online activities as readings, quizzes or other assessments. Today it’s primarily lectures, and the students, between lectures, read the literature. If using the model I would use the face- to-face time for seminars instead of lecturing. The students could then watch recordings of the lectures at home and do quizes etc.

References:

Hodges, C. et al. (2020). The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. EDUCAUSE review.

Open University – Reflection and Resources from the Open University Learning Design Team – Webpage with Resources

Planning the student journey

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2018). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Edmonton: AU Press. Chapter 1 “The Community of Inquiry Conceptual framework”.

Reflection on topic 3: Learning in communities – networked collaborative learning.

By Johanna Elfgren

On June 12, 2022

In Topic 3: Learning in communities – networked collaborative learning, Uncategorized

This blog post will focus on the third topic of the ONL-course; Learning in communities – networked collaborative learning. I will use the experience from my PBL-group in this course and examples from our cooperation during topics one and two.

First of all, I’m delighted to be a member of PBL11. Since our first meeting, I’ve felt comfortable with all members and facilitators, which have been valuable in our creative processes. We all have busy schedules but also prioritize our meetings and finish our presentations to the rest of the ONL-members. In my opinion, this is one of the essential factors in collaborative work, engagement from the members. All group members can have different reasons for committing, but without commitment, the result won’t be as good, and frustration would appear in the group. The frustration about varying levels of commitment is something that Capdeferro, N. & Romero, M. (2012) also have seen in their studies. If all of us in PBL11 hadn’t similar situations and commitment levels, it would probably be frustrating for those who committed more than the other participants.

I started my job at Karlstad university during the pandemic of Covid-19. All courses had been moved from campus to online overnight during the previous semester. Before the pandemic, the department of social studies only had a few online courses, and only a few teachers had taught students online. Many of my colleagues describe that during the first semester, they used the same way of teaching they would have in the classroom on campus. In addition, they said that meaningful assignments for group work were extra challenging online.

According to Palloff & Pratt (2005), collaborative learning has specific pedagogical benefits. These are developing critical thinking skills, co-creating knowledge and meaning, reflection, and transformative learning. The benefits of collaborative learning are clear, but how can you ensure the learning process will happen in the group? The article by Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. M. & Walti, C. (2009) includes suggestions on creating effective collaborative learning. In addition, the article presents that it’s essential to demonstrate the value of group learning by assessing both the product and process. I think that this is a valuable factor for collaborative learning. I can take my own experience from joining ONL as an example. During the first topic, my co-moderator and I expected to make sure our group would solve the scenario rather than focus on the process. Thankfully our facilitators repeated that it’s not the finished product that’s most important. Therefore, I think that our creativity was let free and enabled us to finish the first two topics with excellent results in my eyes.

References:

Brindley, J., Blaschke, L. M. & Walti, C. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3). https://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/675/1271

Capdeferro, N. & Romero, M. (2012). Are online learners frustrated with collaborative learning experiences?. The International review of research in open and distance learning, 13(2), 26-44.

https://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1127/2129

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

https://teacamp.vdu.lt/pluginfile.php/1706/mod_resource/content/1/C1NN/Learning_Together_in_Community_Collaboration_Online.pdf

Reflection on topic 2: Open Learning – Sharing and Openness

By Johanna Elfgren

On June 12, 2022

In Topic 2: Open Learning – sharing and openness, Uncategorized

This blog post will summarize my thoughts about topic two in this ONL-course; sharing and openness. I will describe my views on open education as they evolved from the group work in PBL 11. In the article by Catherine Cronin (2017), she uses the definition of open education as “resources, tools, and practices that employ a framework of open sharing to improve educational access and effectiveness worldwide.”

Before joining the ONL course, I admit that I hadn’t reflected much on open education and its importance. However, reading the blog post about the “Coffee House Model” by Ragupathi, K. (2020) and our discussions on topic two made me think about what resources would be needed for educational access for a larger group than today. As Ragupathi, K. (2020) mentions, education is only offered to those who can afford it in many countries, which excludes large groups from the knowledge and higher education.

I think that many other Swedes and I take higher education for granted. For example, it’s free to study at any university in Sweden. Therefore, with reasonably good grades, you can participate in higher education in open learning despite your financial situation and school proficiency. However, according to the resources we discovered in topic 2, there are challenges and barriers to reaching open education. A couple of them are language barriers and limited access to the internet.

The fact that language skills and the country’s infrastructure affect access to education online is a logical assumption, but being a teacher in Sweden hasn’t been in my thoughts. In Sweden, we learn English from a very young age, and even though I wouldn’t say that I was very comfortable speaking English in my profession before this course, I still understand and can make myself understood. The English language could therefore be a limitation for large groups to participate in open education and shouldn’t be taken for granted worldwide. However, despite barriers, our group’s findings show that the benefits of openness outweigh the obstacles. Overcoming the barriers benefits social justice, multiculturalism, innovation, etc.

How would it be if all education were available online and for free? Of course, it wouldn’t take care of the language barriers or the lack of infrastructure in some parts of the world, but it would open up larger groups than today. So we must contribute to making education available for all, creating and sharing content for others to see—collaboration in your own country and professionals in other countries.

Open education won’t, in my opinion, replace traditional education, but open education can raise awareness and knowledge. That has to do with most students studying higher education to get a job. I think a future employer will still choose a candidate from an ivy league university instead of studying at an open university. If this is right or wrong is another blog post and will therefore end here.

References:

Cronin, C. (2017). Open Education, Open Questions. EDUCAUSE Review 52, no. 6 (November/December 2017)

Ragupathi, K. (2020). Being open: drawing parallels with the Coffee House model.

Reflection on topic 1: Online participation and digital literacies

By Johanna Elfgren

On March 27, 2022

In Topic 1: Online participation & digital literacies

“Social Media Tools” by jrhode is marked with CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

David White and Alison Le Cornu (2011) present that web users can be divided into two groups, visitors and residents, according to how they use it. The following text is a short description of what categorizes visitors and residents.

Residents see the web as a place like any other in the “real world.” The line between their online and offline lives is blurred. Residents spend time with other people in virtual communities, have profiles on social networking platforms, and have a digital identity. On the other hand, visitors use literacies for specific tasks, like searching databases for information, using email to keep in touch with friends, etc. The visitor is anonymous online and avoids having a digital identity as they find little value in belonging online (White and Le Cornu, 2011).

During our first topic, I’ve been thinking about my own use of digital literacies and what is considered private and professional. I was born in 1988, and my childhood was without computers and an online presence. I still remember when my parents got us a family computer with a dial-up modem, and I was excited to dive into the online world. In the beginning, I used the computer for web searching, emails, playing games, and talking with friends online. My usage changed in 2007 when I moved to the U.S for a year as an au-pair. I started to use Facebook to keep in touch with friends and family and later joined other social network platforms. In the beginning, I was more of a resident than a visitor. It became a way of being close to home and made posts regularly, and had an open profile for anyone to see.

Before teaching, I worked as a social worker in social services with children and their families. Unfortunately, it’s not unusual for social workers in this area to receive threats in their profession from parents due to decisions made regarding their children. As a new social worker, I soon realized that clients had accessed my personal Facebook profile. This made me uncomfortable, and I didn’t want the line between personal and professional to get blurred and made my digital presence barely noticeable. Since becoming a teacher and entering this ONL-course, I’ve started to consider if being more resident would be such a bad thing?

Reference:

White, D. & Le Cornu, A. (2011) Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16(9).

Reflection on topic 5: Lessons learnt- future practice.

Reflection on topic 4: Design for online and blended learning.

Reflection on topic 3: Learning in communities – networked collaborative learning.

Reflection on topic 2: Open Learning – Sharing and Openness

Reflection on topic 1: Online participation and digital literacies