Part 1: Evidence and Reflection on your learning

During the course, I have read a lot of academic articles related to the topic of education, one of which left me with a deep impression: Teaching online: A guide to theory, research,  and practice. In chapter 4, the author mentioned some critical aspects of online teaching: enrollment, amount, timing, and platform. When it comes to the amount, the author points out that “putting a syllabus online and exchanging some emails with students is not blended learning. Rather, substantive and direct instructional activity should take place over the Internet in order for a course to be considered blended learning (Major, 2015).” From this, I learned a more specific and novel definition of online learning, which is not only about the online platforms of email or social media but also about how to employ the digital platforms to engage with students, to encourage more equal, extensive, and convenient interaction among the students and boost their learning. The process of reading papers helps me achieve the learning outcome “Explore and engage with current literature on the distributed and open education movement”.

In the same chapter, the author also provides a more precise definition of blended teaching: “Blended or hybrid. 30%– 79% of the course happens on the Internet (Major, 2015).” I have also talked about blended learning in my first blog: “making face-to-face learning and online powerfully complementary meant the combination of face-to-face synchronous communication with text-based online asynchronous communication.” https:// minruihan.opened.ca/topic-1-what-does-a-blended-learning-look-like-to-you/From doing I learned the definition of blended learning and I have reflected on its benefits. The process is helpful to “Critically reflect on and articulate concepts around blended learning”. This learning matters to me because it makes me think about the benefits of blending learning. As far as I am concerned, the reason why blended teaching is more favorable is that it can use digital tools to record the course process, illustrate boring theoretical lecturing, create a virtual environment for classmate discussion, allowing more space for students to design their personalized learning.

In the Digital Equity & Perspective Pod Project, our group has designed a fictional figure named Lisa. We have analyzed her personality, her growth experience, her family background, her talents, her likes and dislikes, and her strengths and weaknesses. Then we design a suitable learning approach for her based on all these factors. This process is really inspiring, which leads me to think that one’s learning outcome has much to do with the learning context such as the previous education experience and one’s family environment. In this case, there is no single perfect learning approach that can bring the best outcomes for everyone, and everyone should be encouraged to find their own customized learning method. The process of analyzing Lisa’s learning also points to the importance and the potential of online learning. We concluded that an open learning environment is most suitable for Lisa, “Open learning environment effectively solves problems such as rigid learning objectives, single teaching, and learning methods, lack of autonomy and flexibility in learning, and lack of full respect for students’ personal knowledge or ability background.” (https://edci339po4.opened.ca/digital-equity-perspective-pod-project/) Open learning environment can only be possible with the advancement of online learning. If the online platforms can be used properly, they can lead students to a new era of learning, which allows them to find a learning approach tailored to their needs. This process helps me build the ability to “Describe the potential of human-centered learning in distributed and open learning contexts”. The learning matters to me because I learned that all education methods have to be human-centered, and lead to reflect on the defects of traditional learning.

I attach much importance on the readings of the course. I am accustomed to using mind maps to help me to sort out the content of the academic papers. For example, I have made the mind map of the paper Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning:  twenty-first century student sorting and tracking, in which I have divided the content into three parts: the ethical issues related to edtech, the political responses, and finally the interaction between personalized learning and other social issues, like race and gender. From the paper I learned the potential disadvantages of online learning, especially its impact on privacy. Personalized learning is based on the process of collecting students’ personal information and analyzing the data. If the process cannot be supervised properly, it is likely to endanger students’ psychological development and freedom of becoming themselves. The learning contributed to my development of “critically reflect upon emerging and future educational technologies”. The learning matters to me because it reminds me not to rely too much on the statistical function of online education since it is achieved at the cost of students’ privacy.

Most of the time we are required to interact with others. I have also actively interact with other classmates and learn from them. For example, I have received comments for my blog “Topic 2: Open education vs traditional education”.(https://minruihan.opened.ca/topic-2/) As the screenshot shows, Moky pointed out the disadvantage of MOOC courses I had left out—its fees. I also admit its disadvantage of lack of interaction. In response to leihan’s recognition of the potential of online learning, I also showed my agreement that onlinelearning is especially superior to traditional learning in overcoming the geographical barriers, especially amid pandemic.

 

 

Part 2: “Showcase” Blog Post

I have improved my blog post: Topic 2: Open education vs traditional education. The original version can be accessed through https://minruihan.opened.ca/topic-2/.

This is the revised blog: https://minruihan.opened.ca/topic-2-revised-blog Open learning means anyone can access the technical tools and achieve the learning he/she wants, according to the book A Guide to Theory, Research, and Practice (Major, 2015). MOOC, a massive open course platform created in 2008 by Dave Cormier, comes as a good example.

On one hand, it lowers the cost of education with some free classes although there are also courses requiring fees. It also make education available to people from all walks of life, providing opportunities for employees to be exposed to lifelong learning and improve themselves. Another advantage is its form of online learning, which addresses the geographical and temporal barriers, allowing more convenience and flexibility, which is especially meaningful in the era of pandemic when face-to-face interaction can be risky. On top of that, blended learning is possible through the platform, which proves to be “considerably more effective than one or other used solely” compared with traditional learning or online learning (de Freitas et al., 2015). The presence of MOOC also challenges traditional learning which “are costly to deliver, are not very scalable and rely upon an inherent Ă©litism in that small numbers of learners are optimal (de Freitas et al., 2015)”.

On the other hand, there are also limitations, for example, lack of interaction and low completion rates. “High ‘attrition rates’ have been problematic for wider uptake of online courses. The literature has also been clear about pointing to the high ‘dropout’ rates associated with MOOCs, with around 7–10% completing the courses (de Freitas et al., 2015). So what contributes to the low completion rates and how can we handle the problem of open learning?

In the paper Unpacking online learning experiences: Online learning self-efficacy and  learning satisfaction, the authors point out that “online learning self-efficacy predicted students’ online learning satisfaction”(Shen et al., 2013). Self-efficacy refer to the students’ ability to organize, to deliver their commitment, and to attain different kinds of assigned tasks (Shen et al., 2013). It has been found that “drop-out rate is related in part to lack of self-efficacy”. The experiment also confirms that interaction with instructors and classmates is a critical factor in predicting learning satisfaction. In response, there are several suggestions for online learning construction. First of all, supervise students’ participation. This can be achieved with the help of online instructors who are responsible for monitoring of students’ participation and assignment and providing necessary help when students lack enough online experience. Secondly, promote social interaction with others. Instructors are encouraged to “create social presence and teaching presence to Forster a learning community” (Shen et al., 2013). Thirdly, provide assistance about how to use online tools in a CMS. The students’s confidence and proficiency in using the tools also play a role in their self-efficacy (Shen et al., 2013).

In conclusion, open learning like MOOC has both advantages and disadvantages. As far as I am concerned, open education is a trend for the future. If instructors can monitor students’ participation, create a learning community, and offer help in handling technical tools, the students would have a high self-efficacy, encouraging them to finish the course and harvest knowledge from it.

 

I have made some changes in my revised post.

First of all, I have changed the structure and theme of my blog. My current blog is themed on the negative and positive impact of open learning. I made this change because the discussion under my original blog is all about it and people are curious about the benefits and weaknesses of open learning. Obviously the topic is more intriguing and more meaningful. Secondly, I add more benefits and weaknesses of the online platform of MOOC after I analyzed the paper Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher  education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. In the paper, it mentioned about the high attrition rates of online learning and also the challenge posed by online learning towards traditional learning. These points also respond to the question asked by Rbanow about “a difficulty with open courses is retaining students”. Thirdly, I add the content about self-efficacy and suggestions for instructors of online learning. The two parts are added because I was motivated to search for more academic evidence to answer the questions about why the online course has low completion rates and how to solve the problem. After I read Unpacking online learning experiences: Online learning self-efficacy  and learning satisfaction, I learned that self-efficacy is very important since a student with high self-efficacy are motivated to persist in the course and learn more from it. I also learned that self-efficacy can be determined by many factors like interaction and proficient use of online tools. Thus, by enhancing these factors, instructors can provide better online learning experience for students.

 

                                                        References

de Freitas, S. I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 455–471. https:// doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12268

Major, C. H. (2015). Teaching Online: A Guide to Theory, Research, and Practice  (Tech.edu: A Hopkins Series on Education and Technology) (Illustrated ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press.

Regan, P. M., & Jesse, J. (2018). Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning: twenty-first century student sorting and tracking. Ethics and Information  Technology, 21(3), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9492-2

Shen, D., Cho, M. H., Tsai, C. L., & Marra, R. (2013). Unpacking online learning bexperiences: Online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. The Internet  and Higher Education, 19, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.04.001