Power & Gerin Lajoie Cnie08

  • 677 views
Uploaded on

M. Power and S Gérin-Lajoie presentation at CNIE- RCIÉ, Banff 2008

M. Power and S Gérin-Lajoie presentation at CNIE- RCIÉ, Banff 2008

More in: Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
677
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Bonjour, voici les résultats de l’entrevue tenue avec un conseiller pédagogique dans le cadre du cours Problèmes de design pédagogique en apprentissage en ligne. L’entrevue s’est bien déroulée, selon les normes que nous avions établies. ► = cliquer pour entrer une nouvelle phrase

Transcript

  • 1. BUILDING THE BOAT IN THE WATER: a low-level front-end design and high-level, delivery-based course development methodology for higher education Dr. Michael Power & Serge Gérin-Lajoie
  • 2. Overview: researcher perspective
    • Context: from DE to OL
    • 2 classical design models, 1 emerging
        • Traditional University (course planning model)
        • Distance Education University (ISD model)
        • Dual-mode University (blended online learning (BOL) model)
          • BOL Components & Deployment
  • 3. Context (1 of 2)
    • Thriving ICT industry; invigorated field of research in IDT (Reiser & Dempsey, 2007);
    • Universities, complete technological array of options for DE/OL (Bates, 2005; Bullen & Janes, 2007; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008);
    • However, mixed results for “Web” courses (Allen & Seaman, 2004; Larreamendy-Joerns & Leinhardt, 2006; OECD, 2005);
    • Insufficient reporting (OECD, 2005; Tallent-Runnels, Thomas, Lan, Cooper, Ahern, Shaw & Liu, 2006);
    • Faculty lack time & incentive (Gutierrez-Mortera, 2002; Moore & Kearsley, 2005);
    • Initiatives criticized, administration-led and profit-motivated (Feenberg, 1999; Noble, 1998; Magnussen, 2005); often ineffective (Carr-Chellman, 2005).
  • 4. Context (2 of 2)
    • Nonetheless, continuing interest in DE/OL in TUs:
      • promote social justice by access to HE (Van Dusen, 2000);
      • increase enrolments, decrease costs (Jung, 2003);
    • Universities turning to blended learning , using ICT to develop online components of on-campus courses (Bonk & Graham, 2005; Garrison & Vaughan, 2008);
    • Faculty develop materials for online delivery which complement on-campus teaching and learning (Cook, Owston & Garrison, 2004; Cummings, Bonk & Jacobs, 2002);
    • Current study underway (Power & Vaughan) looks at the implementation of a blended ONLINE learning model.
  • 5. Blended Online Learning
    • The blended online learning environment is the simultaneous and complimentary integration and implementation of
    • a system-managed, asynchronous-mode learning environment (i.e. a course management system) and
    • a faculty-led, synchronous-mode learning environment (i.e. a “virtual classroom” environment).
    • Power, M. (2008). Responsible outreach in higher education: the Blended Online Learning Environment. American Educational Research Association , Instructional Design SIG, New York, March 24-28.
  • 6. Two main components
    • Completely online
    Asynchronous activities Synchronous activities
  • 7. Research method
    • Design research inspired-approach (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Sandovel & Bell, 2004; Joseph, 2004; Jonassen, Cernusca & Ionas, 2007)
    • “ Design is research and research is design. Design research uses continuous cycles of design, imple-mentation, analysis and redesign” (Jonassen, Cernusca & Ionas, 2007, p. 48).
    • Development research (Richey, Klein & Nelson, 2004; Van der Maren, 1998); case study-based, problem-solving approach to data collection (Ertmer & Quinn, 2007; Berg, 2001; Leedy & Ormrod, 1999; Yin, 1994).
  • 8. Distance Education University Design Model http://gocalifornia.about.com/bl_lahphoto_dry.htm
    • Instructional Development
    • Instructional Design
    • Instructional Delivery
    The dry-docks model
  • 9. Distance Education University Design Model Course project plan Instructional Design Design: start Prior to course delivery Instructional Delivery Design: end Delivery start Delivery end Resources and Activities Design & Development Instructional Development Dev: start Dev: end Resources and Activities Delivery EFFORT REQUIRED: ROUGHLY 80%-20%
  • 10. Distance Education University Design Model Structure Dialogue Classical single-mode distance education has been characterized by high structure and low dialogue . P2P S-T Emphasis on design & development
  • 11. Traditional University Design model
    • Course Delivery
    • Ongoing course prep
    • Course Preparation (limited design & development)
    www.macnaughtongroup.com/dl100.1.gif
  • 12. Traditional University Design Model Program course description Course preparation Design & Development prior to course Delivery During Course Delivery Continuing Preparation & Delivery Course: start Course: end Ongoing teaching, student support and performance evaluation process EFFORT REQUIRED: ROUGHLY 20-80%
  • 13. Traditional University Design Model Structure Dialogue F2F Emphasis on delivery Classical single-mode traditional higher education has been characterized by high dialogue and low structure.
  • 14. Blended Online Learning Design Model A B C www.macnaughtongroup.com/dl100.1.gif
    • Course Delivery
    • Instructional Design & Development (A+B+C)
  • 15. Blended Online Learning Design Model Design & Development during Course Delivery Development & Delivery Development & Delivery: start Development & Delivery: end EFFORT: ROUGHLY 50%-50% Design & Development: end 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Design & Development start Redesign
  • 16. Blended Online Learning Design Model Structure Dialogue A more equal emphasis on design, development & delivery.
  • 17. Professeur Participants Travail en dyades en mode asynchrone pendant la semaine Groupe Équipes Participant Membre 1 Équipe X Rencontres de groupe en direct en mode synchrone à chaque semaine, à heure fixe Participant Participant Participant Membre 2 Équipe X Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant 3. 2. 1. Course organisation Weekly Individual Assignments (readings, online research, quiz)
  • 18. Professeur Travail individuel pendant la semaine (lectures, recherche en ligne, quiz) Participants Groupe TEAMS Participant Membre 1 Équipe X Participant Participant Participant Membre 2 Équipe X Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant 3. 2. 1. Weekly Team Assignments Reviewing readings, answering debate questions, writing team questions
  • 19. Professor Travail individuel pendant la semaine (lectures, recherche en ligne, quiz) Participants Travail en dyades en mode asynchrone pendant la semaine Group Équipes Participant Membre 1 Équipe X SYNCHRONOUS MODE Participant Participant Participant Membre 2 Équipe X Participant Participant Participant Participant Participant 3. 2. 1.
  • 20. Challenges for the Professor and the Instructional Designer
  • 21. This model of course challenges the Professor
    • Before the beginning of the course
    • (front-end design)
  • 22. This model of course challenges the Professor
    • During the course
  • 23. This model of course challenges the Instructional Designer
    • Before the beginning of the course
    • (front-end design)
  • 24.
    • During the course
    This model of course challenges the Instructional Designer
  • 25. Conclusion – For the Professor
    • Some important prerequisites in front-end design
    Planning instructional strategies Adapting instructional resources Planning technical production
  • 26. Conclusion – For the professor
    • This approach requires :
    • Less work from the professor before the course than is usually the case when developing an online course, nearing that of a traditional, on-campus-delivered course;
    • More work from the professor during the course than is usually the case with an online course;
    • A degree of mastery of some technical skills.
  • 27.
    • Some important changes the ID rôle
    Conclusion – For the Intructional Designer Project management Resources production
  • 28.
    • This approach requires :
    • before course delivery
      • less counselling than usual;
      • more pedagogical and technical advisor tasks.
    • during course delivery
      • more project management.
      • more resource production work.
      • more of a technical support role.
    Conclusion – For the Intructional Designer
  • 29.
    • With the emergence of that kind of approach in distance learning courses, some interesting questions arise:
    • What new skills must professors learn?
    • How can universities better manage professoral workload with regard to online learning?
    • Do the roles of instructional designers have to change?
    • Do we need instructional designers to specialize in some domains ?
    Conclusion
  • 30. Contact us!
    • Michael Power Ph.D.
    • Professeur – Education & Technology
    • Researcher with CIRTA.org
    • Faculty of Education
    • Office 1174
    • 2320 rue des Bibliothèques
    • Laval University
    • Québec (Québec) G1V 0A6
    • Tél.: (418) 656-2131 #5467
    • Télec: (418) 656-2905
    • Email:
    • [email_address]
    • Website:
    • http://www.fse.ulaval.ca/Michael.Power
    • Free E-book (French version):
    • http://www.aupress.ca/MichaelPower.php
    • Serge Gérin-Lajoie
    • Instructional Designer in Distance Education
    • Réseau de valorisation de l’enseignement
    • Pavillon Louis-Jacques-Casault,
    • local 2325
    • Laval University
    • Québec (Québec) G1V 0A6
    • Tél.: (418) 656-2131 # 5613
    • Télec: (418) 656- 4661
    • Email:
    • [email_address]