Etug2010pres 100628092811-phpapp01


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Etug2010pres 100628092811-phpapp01

  1. 1. Discovering a Multi-Access Learning Environment in Action Dr. Valerie Irvine TIE Research Lab, Faculty of Education University of Victoria
  2. 2. About Valerie Dr. Valerie Irvine Assistant Professor, Educational TechnologyCo-Director, Technology Integration and Evaluation (TIE) Research Lab University of Victoria 2 of 39
  3. 3. TIE Research Lab @ UVic“Technology Integration and Evaluation” Research Lab (with Co-Director, Dr. Allyson Hadwin Approximately $800,000 in funding provided by: • Canada Foundation for Innovation • British Columbia Knowledge Development Funds • Knowledge North (Canarie) • The University of Victoria (various sources) • Telus • Polycom • Dell • SMART Technologies • Epson, etc. 3 of 39 3
  4. 4. TIE Research Lab @ UVicRESEARCHING• Technologies for improving learning strategies• Learner and teacher technology acceptance• Regulating solo and collaborative learning• Evaluating video-conferencing technologies for learning and collaborating 4 of 39
  5. 5. TIE Research Lab @ UVicINFRASTRUCTURE• State-of-the-art video conferencing facility• Research workstations• Digital video & recording devices• 3 portable laptop laboratories• Video capture and streaming server (about to be enhanced)• SMART technologies 5 of 39
  6. 6. TIE Research Lab @ UVic 6 of 39
  7. 7. TIE Research Lab @ UVic 7 of 39
  8. 8. TIE Research Lab @ UVic 8 of 39
  9. 9. So what does this mean for learning environments?• Influx of new technologies supported the exploration of ways to support networked learning 9 of 39
  10. 10. Reflections on online course experiences• Registration options: • Building, Room, Day, Time • “ONL” = online…• Guest speaker from Stanford and the logistics of student involvement when no schedule was committed• Video conference vs. Elluminate 10 of 39
  11. 11. Reflections on online course experiences • Mix of off-campus & on-campus students enrolled • On-campus students create F2F meetings • Distance students create F2F meetings when in the same city • Perception of responsibility to meet needs of on-campus students • Rural school district superintendent with VC-enabled room expresses interest in teacher PD via VC 11 of 39
  12. 12. Current Processes in Higher Education• Examination of registration system • “building, room, day, time” course category • “online” course category• An environment or way to connect is chosen• Student participation in a course • determined by ability to access a course within those constraints 12 of 39
  13. 13. Current processes in higher education• NO option for students to *make a choice* about *how they are able* to access a course• Locus of control of course access is at the instructor or institutional level 13 of 39
  14. 14. Factors for Change• Recent research showing higher exam results with podcast learning (McKinney, Dyck, & Luber, 2009)• How do we communicate choice of access to learners? 14 of 39
  15. 15. Factors for Change• Declining student population in some cases • echo generation moving on, increase of post- secondary institutions, decrease in funding, etc.• Need to merge the three types of learners and find ways to deliver learning that can be accessed… • Anytime, anywhere, and any way 15 of 39
  16. 16. Questions raised• How does this fit with current delivery modes?• How can this be communicated via traditional university time table systems?• What type of label is appropriate for this environment?• How can this be supported?• Do we worry about media release of students? 16 of 39
  17. 17. Learning Delivery Modes• Face-to-Face Education• Blended Learning• Online Learning (asynchronous typically)• Blended Online Learning (asynchronous & synchronous)• Video Conferencing Learning :• Multi-Access Learning 17 of 39
  18. 18. Learning Delivery Considerations• Additional Considerations • Open Online Communities • Open Courses • See examples by George Siemens (Athabasca University) or Alec Couros (University of Regina) 18 of 39
  19. 19. Multi-Access Learning (Irvine, 2009)allows the following: • School district, health unit, business could register a number of students and the spot for one IP connection to a vc-enabled classroom • Individual enrolment by desktop distance learner to watch recorded lectures and participate online • On-campus learners can register a bum-in-seat spot in the VC-enabled classroom • Potentially, desktop connection to VC unit if hardware bridge is employed 19 of 39
  20. 20. Multi-Access Learning (Irvine, 2009) 20 of 39
  21. 21. 21 of 39
  22. 22. Three Types of Learner Access1. Distributed (online) • Off campus typically • On campus learners (can be unhappy with an online option) • Individual access (not likely pods of F2F learners) 22 of 39
  23. 23. Three Types of Learner Access2. IP Video Conferencing • Off-campus learners (e.g., health units, business, K-12, etc.) • With so many codecs around, why do we not support their access to higher education for professional development? 23 of 39
  24. 24. Three Types of Learner Access3. Face-to-Face • Still “the” mode for most universities • Might be easier to push traditional faculty members to move to video conference than to teaching online? • Course casting is typically seen as a supplemental resource for on-campus students • And perhaps loss-leader marketing tactic… 24 of 39
  25. 25. Considerations for Implementation• Cost and Portability• Offset to cost may be increased enrollment 25 of 39
  26. 26. Considerations for Implementation• Instructional design – need for research/pilots• Instructor Preparation 26 of 39
  27. 27. Considerations for Implementation• Recording and Privacy • Media Release? • Course outline as contract and stated • Alternative exists (online access)• Integration of other technologies to access community groups (SMART Bridgit conferencing) 27 of 39
  28. 28. Considerations for Implementation• Registration Systems • Biggest barrier • No option for learners to *make a choice* about how they wish or *are able* to access learning • We have offered anytime and anywhere, but not any way 28 of 39
  29. 29. Considerations for Implementation• Registration Systems “Multi-access course” 1. Online (asynchronous) 2. Video Conference at stated day/time User to submit IP, register one-way of the multi-point unit, register students at site 3. Face-to-face at day/time/room 29 of 39
  30. 30. OVERVIEW OF FIELD INITIATIVES• Video conferencing• Role of Social Media• Role of Recording/Streaming & Mobile Learning 30 of 39
  31. 31. VIDEO CONFERENCING• Bandwidth• Knowledgeable educators & staff• See B.C. Premier’s Technology Council’s Report # 12 31 of 39
  32. 32. VIDEO CONFERENCING• Community support • equivalent is required• And where exactly is the VC community??? • Some school districts listed on Canarie site: • Some school districts listed on site: • More to come on when it gets more support… 32 of 39
  33. 33. The Elevate Conference (K-12)• Approximately 500 K-12 Educators in Alberta • willing to come to a conference in August 33 of 39
  34. 34. TIE Research Lab @ UVic 34
  35. 35. TIE Research Lab @ UVic 35
  36. 36. Social Media• Could provide ability to provide another way for learners viewing live stream to participate or for connecting for open education• Tagging options within streaming solutions 36 of 39
  37. 37. Recording/Streaming & Mobile Learning • Live Stream or Video-on-Demand of Multi-access course • See presentation later today • Ability to support mobile learning with this multi- access route 37 of 39
  38. 38. Dream? Or Plausible?• Invited to present to Internet2’s advisory group in Washington DC… 38 of 39
  39. 39. to check out••• PTC report• VROC• Content providers/BCTF• presentation•• GYRD 39 of 39
  40. 40. Open Floor for Comments/Questions Dr. Valerie Irvine 250-721-7778 40 of 39