La Bonte Quality In Dl Apr09


Published on

April 4 2009 Presentation at Canada Moot 09 - presentation includes many slides that time may not permit to be presented

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

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

No notes for slide
  • La Bonte Quality In Dl Apr09

    1. 1. Randy LaBonte e-Learning Consultant
    2. 2. <ul><li>DL in BC </li></ul><ul><li>21 st Century Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 & Social networking </li></ul><ul><li>Disruptive innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Quality: What are we doing? </li></ul>
    3. 3.
    4. 4. US online enrolments up 25% 54,000 DL enrolments in BC 2008/09
    5. 5.
    6. 6. <ul><li>Public school Dogwood graduation 79% </li></ul><ul><li>Distributed Learning K-7 completion 89% </li></ul><ul><li>Grade 8 – 12 DL completion 65% (based on early cohort reports) </li></ul><ul><li>North America estimated at 70% completion for online </li></ul><ul><li>However... </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How completion is defined and measured varies </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. <ul><li>Completion rate measurements are under inspection </li></ul><ul><li>Quality of online learning questioned and under scrutiny </li></ul><ul><li>Backdrop of pressures to improve learning opportunities and results </li></ul><ul><li>Within a kaleidoscope of shifting social, educational, and technological forces </li></ul>
    8. 8. <ul><ul><li>Distributed learning in BC will be a quality, dynamic and engaging learning environment that all students in the province can access. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>And the promise of technology: </li></ul><ul><li>“ What is exciting and encouraging [is that] with appropriate instructional leadership... technology can be an effective catalyst for educational reform.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Creighton, 2003 </li></ul></ul>
    9. 10.
    10. 11. <ul><li>Creativity and Innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Communication and Collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>Research and Information Fluency </li></ul><ul><li>Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, & </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Decision Making </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Digital Citizenship </li></ul><ul><li>Technology Operations and Concepts </li></ul>
    11. 12. <ul><li>Conference Board of Canada </li></ul><ul><li>US study: Are they really ready to work? </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Teamwork </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collaboration </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Critical thinking </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Problem solving </li></ul></ul></ul>
    12. 13. <ul><li>“ Equipping Every Learner for the 21 st Century” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proposes a new paradigm for 21 st Century learning enabled by technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Education 3.0” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ requires a holistic transformation of education systems” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ supported by collaborative technologies that allow individuals to create, adapt, and share content” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
    13. 14. <ul><li>If technology is the answer, what is the question? </li></ul><ul><li>The paradox of technology enhanced education is that technology changes very rapidly and human beings very slowly. </li></ul><ul><li>It would seem to make sense for proponents of e‑learning to begin with the students. </li></ul><ul><li>Bates & Poole, 2003, p. xiii </li></ul>
    14. 15.
    15. 16. <ul><li>Initial internet use was cataloguing and supplying information – a one-directional “supply-push” </li></ul><ul><li>Shift is now to an interactive platform – a two-directional “demand-pull” </li></ul><ul><li>“ I believe that the read/write Web, or what we are calling Web 2.0 , will culturally, socially, intellectually, and politically have a greater impact than the advent of the printing press.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Steve Hargadon, Techlearning blog </li></ul></ul>
    16. 17. EARLY NET MATURE NET 3-D NET Access Participate Find Collaborate Co-Create Informational web pages, content and graphics User generated content, blogs, wikis, mashups, driven by sharing Highly social, user created, immersive environment INFORMATION PUBLICATION NETWORKING Share
    17. 18. <ul><li>Renewed emphasis on collaborative learning </li></ul><ul><li>Educators developing new forms of interaction and assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Gap between students’ perception of technology and faculty’s continues to widen </li></ul><ul><li>“ The growing use of Web 2.0 and social networking… is gradually but inexorably changing the practice of scholarship.” </li></ul>
    18. 19. <ul><li>21 st Century learners need technological tools and approaches that reflect their habits </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Oblinger & Oblinger, 2004; Dede, 2005; Siemens, 2008; Evans, et al., 2008 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The use of tools and technologies familiar to learners may foster higher levels of engagement </li></ul><ul><li>(blogs, wikis, social networking, podcasts, video streaming, and multi-user virtual environments) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National Survey of Student Engagement, 2007, pp.7-8 </li></ul></ul>
    19. 20.
    20. 21. <ul><li>Use collaborative learning approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Are personally involved in online social networks </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, 2 nd Life </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Include social networking in your instructional practice </li></ul>
    21. 22. <ul><li>Research conducted by Richard Light of Harvard: </li></ul><ul><li>One of the strongest determinants of student success was not instructor teaching style, rather the ability to form and participate in small study groups </li></ul><ul><li>Students who studied in groups: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More prepared for class </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Better engaged in their studies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Learned significantly more than students who worked on their own </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Light, R.J. (2001) </li></ul></ul>
    22. 23. <ul><li>“ High quality interaction with learning materials, interaction between teachers and learners and interaction among learners, are all essential for effective learning.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bates, A.W. (2006), p.222 </li></ul></ul>
    23. 24. <ul><li>Analysis of 400,000 students in 3000 schools found the most important predictor of quality was the teacher </li></ul><ul><li>Teacher effect on student achievement was both additive and cumulative </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rice (2003) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The quality of a student’s teacher is the most important determinant of learning after family background. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hanushek (1992) </li></ul></ul>
    24. 26. <ul><li>The growth of online networks is forcing pedagogical change </li></ul><ul><li>Learning is now seen as forming a network and recognizing patterns within </li></ul><ul><li>Networking through technology has been coined “connectivism” by George Siemens </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Siemens, 2008 </li></ul></ul>
    25. 27. <ul><li>Sustaining innovation supports status quo </li></ul><ul><li>Disruptive innovation serves un-met needs </li></ul><ul><li>Service is simpler, typically not as good as sustaining </li></ul><ul><li>For those using it, better than nothing </li></ul><ul><li>Quality improves over time </li></ul><ul><li>Disruptive innovation becomes mainstream </li></ul><ul><li>Is DL a disruptive innovation?? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-enrolled students – needs not met by mainstream </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Student choice of school and teacher </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Choice of student disrupts status quo </li></ul></ul>
    26. 28. <ul><li>DL is growing </li></ul><ul><li>Quality is under scrutiny </li></ul><ul><li>Achievement data collected and measured </li></ul><ul><li>Quality assurance process in place </li></ul><ul><li>Overall, a good start... </li></ul><ul><li>Technology may not be the solution, but it is definitely part of the answer </li></ul><ul><li>Data collection & Quality review process </li></ul>
    27. 29.
    28. 30. <ul><li>Randy LaBonte </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul><ul><li>604-983-0636 </li></ul>
    29. 32. <ul><li>Purposes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve quality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide a framework for accountability and continuous improvement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Guide development and evaluation of instructional practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Describe baseline for content and resources </li></ul></ul>
    30. 33. <ul><li>Process designed to foster improved quality in distributed learning practice </li></ul><ul><li>Reflect the DL Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Assist in establishing and confirming sound practice in all DL schools </li></ul><ul><li>To communicate and share emerging practices in DL </li></ul><ul><li>While audits guide compliance in funding and reporting, the quality review focus is on improved student achievement, choice and satisfaction in DL </li></ul>
    31. 34. <ul><ul><li>Student Success – based on: DL achievement data, provincial exam data, FSA results, satisfaction surveys, district and school-level data, observations of learning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional Practice – based on: DL standards, research on practice, new & emerging practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Leadership Practice – based on: DL standards, research on practice, new & emerging practices </li></ul></ul></ul>
    32. 35. Internal Review (part of school planning process) External Review - Observing, Validating, & Recommending Implementing Quality Instructional & Leadership Practices Emerging Practice -Sharing & Applying New Strategies Student Success (engagement, achievement & satisfaction)
    33. 36. <ul><li>DL educators poll at the VSS conference: </li></ul><ul><li>“ To measure quality in online learning the most important thing to assess is” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Results (achievement data) – 30% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Satisfaction (satisfaction surveys) – 28% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Choice (sign ups to courses) – 0% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pedagogy/Instructional practice – 42% </li></ul></ul>
    34. 37. <ul><li>Garrison, Anderson, and Archer’s (2000) Community of Inquiry framework is the foundation for instructional practice </li></ul>
    35. 38. <ul><li>Transformational leadership theory describes leadership practices and behaviours within DL schools. </li></ul><ul><li>(Leithwood and Duke , 1999; Silins & Mulford, 2002; Leithwood, 2005) </li></ul>
    36. 39. <ul><ul><li>Internal review by DL educators </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Instructional/leadership review models for reflection on DL Standards supporting school planning processes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Collection and monitoring of data to shape DL practice </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>External Review (select DL school sites) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Initial meeting(s) with school staff and district staff </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Review of DL achievement data, satisfaction info, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Observation/discussion with instructional, support and admin staff </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sharing observations – external team and district/school staff </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Post site review meeting (observations and data analysis, areas of strength /improvement) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Publication of external review formal report </li></ul></ul></ul>
    37. 40. Internal Review (part of school planning process) External Review - Observing, Validating, & Recommending Emerging Practice -Sharing & Applying New Strategies Implementing Quality Instructional & Leadership Practices Student Success (engagement, achievement & satisfaction)
    38. 41. <ul><li>Use of synchronous tools and events </li></ul><ul><li>Development of online presence </li></ul><ul><li>Creation of cohort groups </li></ul><ul><li>Blending learning (F2F with online) </li></ul><ul><li>Project-based work </li></ul><ul><li>Portfolio assessment strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Enhanced use of video </li></ul><ul><li>Student-led and controlled technologies </li></ul>