In the twitter chat, someone brought up the topic that learners’ privacy should be the first concern in open pedagogy. When I designed a learning recourse project in EDCI 335, I never thought of this. As the creator of an education curriculum, it’s easy to fall into the trap of targeting learning outcomes as the primary objective. This objective may be true in traditional pedagogy, but it is entirely different in the case of online pedagogy. While online resources have great benefits for our learners, we must consider learners’ privacy in utilizing these online resources. As educators, we are not only responsible for helping our learners to reach their learning goals; protecting our learner’s privacy is also our obligation. In my beginner german class, my professor used an online platform named Pseudonyms, which is also mentioned in the twitter chat, to collect our writing assignments. This online tool allows us to share our writings with our classmates anonymously. I would consider this technology tool practical and appropriate for educational use because it enhances learning efficiency and students’ privacy. However, someone also mentioned that these open resources may be exclusive for particular students. I didn’t realize this because all of my classmates had access to electronic devices, and this usage of technology is not alien to us. This twitter chat gives me an opportunity to reflect on my past experience with open learning. In the future, I hope I can incorporate the consideration of students’ privacy and excluded minorities in course teaching and designing.
Author: yiwei
Link to the original post
In Stommel’s article, he argues that ignoring students’ identity as subjective human beings and expecting fixed learning outcomes are problematic. I agree with this claim; ‘What technology should instructors apply to optimize students’ learning outcome?’ was my biggest concern when I was creating a learning design named interactive learning resources in EDCI 335. As the creator of the learning design, I subconsciously assumed that every student could follow the given instruction and progress; I did not realize the potential barriers that my students may confront. Students may experience technical issues because of insufficient technology support, or maybe they could have a hard time balancing a conflicting work schedule with the course. The learning outcome is indeed the most crucial objective that instructors want to achieve; however, we must not forgo our students’ other identities as workers, parents, sons, daughters, etc. I believe that incorporating considerations of potential barriers that students may encounter in course teaching and designing can improve the learning experience and achieve better learning outcomes.
While online learning management systems provide instructors with a platform designed for delivery, the system assumes students’ and instructors’ experiences always identical. Stommel refutes this assumption by stating that lesson plans and learning experiences apply distinctively with every teacher, student, and situation. (Stommel, 2018) Even though online courses could provide time and location convenience for both learners and teachers, students’ needs can be easily ignored behind the screen; to fix this situation, a more flexible classroom allowing more interactions and development of relationships needs to be designed.
Stommel then argues that the literacy of using technology is more important than what technology to apply. The core of technology application is to support students and enhance their learning experience. As instructors, we should aim to apply technology in the best way instead of searching for the ‘best technology application.’ I agree with Stommel’s claim that there is no need to distinguish traditional pedagogy with digital pedagogy or improve the delivery of data and learning resources. The best pedagogy is the one that instructors can help students and enhance their learning experience by listening and communicating.
Communicating and collecting feedback may be challenging in open and distributed pedagogy compared with a face-to-face one. Communication has to take place in the way of email, text, or phone call. Although some may think this form of communication may be demanding for instructors, I would argue that patience and care are especially important. In the two years of studying at uvic, I find myself successful in courses taught by instructors who concerned about students. Those instructors motivated me to pose questions, reflect upon learnings, and move beyond classes. I believe that students have a better chance of succeeding in courses that they build a strong relationship with instructors. Learning becomes active and engaging in a conscious way. There’s an ancient Greek definition of education that I would like to share, “the aim of education is to lift the human being out of his/her original nature into his/her ideal nature, which consists of intelligence, affection, and will, harmoniously working together for their own perfection; and we concluded that the best education is that which best accomplishes this object.” (Davidson, 1999)
Reference
Davidson, T. (1999). The education of the Greek people. Bristol: Thoemmes.
Stommel, J. (2018). An urgency of teachers: The work of critical digital pedagogy. Hybrid Pedagogy.
In this article, the author proposes a new pedagogy, OER-enabled pedagogy, which can only operate within the context of 5Rs. (Wiley, 2018) The 5Rs of open educational resources include retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute. By providing evidence of learning outcomes, the author argues that the adoption of OER-enabled pedagogy can lead to positive learning results.
In his illustration of OER-enabled pedagogy’s examples, one particular case stands out for me. A professor at the University of British Columbia asked the students to present their Latin American literary text on Wikipedia. This learning approach allows students to present their work to the public. The author argues that students will be motivated to learn and finish the assignment more actively and engagingly. Moreover, he indicates that this learning approach is also reflective, meaning that students need to re-read and re-consider their work. I find this example very powerful, and if possible, I would like to include this learning approach in my future curriculum design. In the last term, I had to work on a group presentation of a beginner German class. Unlike the traditional presentations which take place during the class session, we had to record our presentations and upload them on Youtube. To be honest, I felt nothing different during the recording process, and I regard this assignment as an ordinary one. However, my view was shifted when I started uploading the recorded videos on Youtube. I began thinking questions like: is my pronunciation authentic. Was the script written grammatically? Does it make sense to the audience? Through reflections, I discovered many mistakes we made, and my group eventually decided to refilm parts of the video to deliver a better presentation.
In this article, although the author used much research evidence to support his argument; however, little voice of the learners is heard. I would consider that this pedagogy could lead to positive potential learning outcomes, but it can only occur with the learners’ cooperation.
Reference,
Wiley, D. & Hilton, J. (2018). Defining OER-enabled Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(4).
In Digital Redlining, Access, and Privacy, the author argues that although filters of search engines are designed for a good purpose, they can potentially prevent learners from accessing more learning resources. The author used a community college student who’s name is Nina as an example to illustrate how filters blocked her from learning and conducting research. I find this example convincing because I also have the same experience. As an undergraduate student at uvic, I am encouraged by my instructors to use the uvic library search engine to find sources and conduct research. In my experience in the past two years of essay writing, the uvic library search engine alone often cannot satisfy my research needs; I had to use outside sources such as google scholar to find sources for my essay because of the uvic search engine only provided limited sources. Therefore, I find it plausible when the author discusses that the filters prevent Nina from accessing information, making her less competitive compared to students who have a more open search engine.
In order to find a solution for providing students with more open access to their learning sources through an appropriate filter, the author argues that collaboration from educators, policymakers, and designers is necessary. I agree with his claim because nonprofessional outsiders, such as policymakers, often determine the redlines. Thus researches from educators must be conducted to impact how the determination of redlines; conducted studies should be taken into consideration by policymakers and designers to create a suitable filter for students. Students can also provide feedback in the process of utilizing these filters. From my perspective, the best learning environment can only be realized by listening to our students. Educators may conduct surveys to collect students’ opinions and experience of using certain filters and improve accordingly.
Reference:
Gilliard, C. (2019, November 06). Digital Redlining, Access, and Privacy. Retrieved July 23, 2020, from https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/digital-redlining-access-and-privacy
In discussing the intellectual efforts, the author differentiates learning approaches into two categories: deep learning and surface learning. (Major, 2015) Surface learning learners can only grasp the learning context’s details or partial information, whereas deep learning learners can fully understand the meaning and indicate the author’s intention. For example, students were asked to read a paragraph of information and restate what they have read. As a result, surface learning learners can only recall fragmental details of the passage; some learners can understand and restate parts of the passage, and deep learning learners can rephrase the author’s statement with supporting evidence.
From my learning experience, I would consider that my learning approach has evolved since I entered college. Philosophy was the course I had an intrinsic interest to learn and put in efforts; however, I did not succeed in that course as I would expect. I was motivated to attend every lecture and engage in every discussion, yet I did not do well in essay writing and final exams. Thinking back, I would say that my surface learning pattern was the primary reason for my failure. Philosophy is a subject that requires lots of intellectual efforts; memorization alone is not enough; good grades will only be given to students who can rephrase philosophical theories with supporting evidence. I especially remember the instructor said that “good philosophy essays are comprehensible to everyone.” In contrast, I used lots of big words and hard sentences in my essay, and even I found my writing hard to understand.
It seems like my writing skills have improved as I practiced, but I would also think the change in my learning pattern has impacted my thinking and writing process. Now, whenever I write, I would think whether my writing makes sense to my audience, and my learning approach becomes deep learning through these self-reflections.
Major, C. H. (2015). Teaching online: A guide to theory, research, and practice. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
‘What technology should instructors apply to optimize students’ learning outcome?’ was my biggest concern when I was creating a learning design named interactive learning resources in EDCI 335. As the creator of the learning design, I subconsciously assumed that every student could follow the given instruction and progress; however, Stommel argues that ignoring students’ identity as subjective human beings and expecting fixed learning outcomes are problematic. While online learning management systems provide instructors with a platform designed for delivery, the system assumes students’ and instructors’ experiences are always identical. Stommel refutes this assumption by stating that lesson plans and learning experiences apply distinctively with every teacher, student, and situation. (Stommel, 2018) While online courses provide time and location convenience for both learners and teachers, students’ needs can be easily ignored behind the screen. Stommel argues that a more flexible classroom, which allows more interactions, exchanges of information, development of relationships, should be designed.
Stommel then argues that the literacy of using technology is more important than what technology to apply. The core of technology application is to support students and to enhance their learning experience, as instructors, we should aim to how to use technology in the best way instead of searching for ‘best technology application’. I agree with Stommel’s claim that there is no need to distinguish traditional pedagogy with digital pedagogy, nor to improve the delivery of data and learning resources. Both face-to-face pedagogy and digital pedagogy have their advantages and flaws; even the combination of both methods, blending learning, still faces potential challenges. (Regan et al, 2019)The best pedagogy is one that instructors can help students and enhance their learning experience by listening and communicating. The best application of technical support is not a digital product but a willingness and effort in creating and improving learning experience through communications and interactions.
Reference
Stommel, J. (2018). An urgency of teachers: The work of critical digital pedagogy. Hybrid Pedagogy.
Vaughan, N. D., Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. AU Press. [Chapter 1]
Regan, P., & Jesse, J. (2019). Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning: Twenty-first century student sorting and tracking. Ethics and Information Technology, 21(3), 167-179. DOI: 10.1007/s10676-018-9492-2