Author: brian3232

Revised Post/Final Reflection

The most intriguing aspect of open pedagogy that is consistent with the 5 r’s is that learning can contribute to the relevant dialogue by allowing student work to be published for the public. Contributing to public knowledge offers a more meaningful interaction with material than “disposable assignments”. This model of pedagogy allows for students’ voices to reach beyond markers and possibly have an impact on shaping the content itself if artifacts are openly licensed. There are, of course, instances where disposable assignments are preferable, as math and science are often matters of repetition.

 

The segment of the only reading of the week that interests me most is the discussion of Wikipedia in education. I read roughly 15 wikipedia articles a week on topics that interest me and an assignment like the one Professor Beasley-Murray assigned would be the most engaging assignment I could imagine. Not only would students be able to absorb information they would contribute to a resource that they themselves use. Having the result of your learning process remain on Wikipedia for yourself and others to reference is far more valuable than the many disposable assignments that currently populate academics.

 

Jhangiani (2015) is strongly in favor of “ditching the disposable assignment”, further expanding upon the positive outcomes that renewable assignments create and the barriers that hinder the adoption of the renewable assignment model. Jhangiani (2015) discusses the APS Wikipedia initiative and how it changes the old stereotype of Wikipedia being an unreliable, unusable source of information. By assigning students the task of editing and adding to Wikipedia articles, students are able to contribute to the landscape of knowledge on a given subject. This sort of real world action is much more meaningful than any one-off disposable assignment. Jhangiani asserts further that while renewable assignments allow students to act as co-creators and offer tangible content to academia, many students first experienced trepidation from the prospect of their open assignment before reporting a more rewarding feeling after project completion. Tailored learning is of course necessary in the adoption of the Wikipedia project, as it is unfair to assign a first-year student the task of authoring an entire WIkipedia entry. In keeping with the theme of open pedagogy, the APS Wikipedia Initiative has a wikipedia entry that includes the names of all the people who have contributed to it.

 

Twitter is a good example of an open software that allows students to openly engage with their curriculum. It allows educators and students to have a casual dialogue on the issues at hand that can be used for further education purposes. A possible hindrance to learning on Twitter is the presence of unwelcome parties who aim only to disrail academic discourse. When quarantine began and classes all over the world were moved to Zoom, a trend began on the internet of people guessing Zoom pass codes and infiltrating class sessions. Twitter operates in an even more open fashion and the threat of wrongdoers gaining access to academic discussions is even greater.

Final Reflection on Twitter:

The Twitter chat for EDCI 339 represents all of the discussion that has taken place on open learning. Though I have never used Twitter and find the format of it extremely confusing, I am confident that the amount of resources shared in the chat is much greater than any closed, disposable setting would allow. Students are able to share the resources they found in their studies while engaged in a casual discourse that promotes interest and retention. \

 

A student raised the issue of access to technology and its effect on learning equity to which another student replies that technological know-how must also be considered when discussing this topic. I strongly agree with this commenter. Twitter allows very open communication and collaboration but as someone who has never used it, the prospect of your first interaction on the site being an academic discussion on a topic you are quite new to is not ideal. This is in no way meant to degrade the use of Twitter in higher education but rather to echo their sentiment that keeping technological experience in mind as open pedagogy ramps up would be wise for educators. 

 

Association for Psychological Science’s Wikipedia Initiative. (2019, September 11). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_for_Psychological_Science’s_Wikipedia_Initiative

 

Jhangiani, R. (2016, December 7). Ditching the “Disposable assignment” in favor of open pedagogy. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/g4kfx

 

Wiley, D. & Hilton, J. (2018). Defining OER-enabled Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(4)

 

Individual Post #4

The most intriguing aspect of open pedagogy that is consistent with the 5 r’s is that learning can contribute to the relevant dialogue by allowing student work to be published for the public. Contributing to public knowledge offers a more meaningful interaction with material than “disposable assignments”. This model of pedagogy allows for students’ voices to reach beyond markers and possibly have an impact on shaping the content itself if artifacts are openly licensed. There are, of course, instances where disposable assignments are preferable, as math and science are often matters of repetition.

 

The segment of the only reading of the week that interests me most is the discussion of Wikipedia in education. I read roughly 15 wikipedia articles a week on topics that interest me and an assignment like the one Professor Beasley-Murray assigned would be the most engaging assignment I could imagine. Not only would students be able to absorb information they would contribute to a resource that they themselves use. Having the result of your learning process remain on Wikipedia for yourself and others to reference is far more valuable than the many disposable assignments that currently populate academics.

 

Twitter is a good example of an open software that allows students to openly engage with their curriculum. It allows educators and students to have a casual dialogue on the issues at hand that can be used for further education purposes. A possible hindrance to learning on Twitter is the presence of unwelcome parties who aim only to disrail academic discourse. When quarantine began and classes all over the world were moved to Zoom, a trend began on the internet of people guessing Zoom pass codes and infiltrating class sessions. Twitter operates in an even more open fashion and the threat of wrongdoers gaining access to academic discussions is even greater.

Wiley, D. & Hilton, J. (2018). Defining OER-enabled Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(4)

Individual Post #3

Individual Post #3

 

The first reading of the week, “Open Pedagogy”, focuses heavily on the idea of students being able to shape their learning architecture and have an open dialogue with both the content of a course and in a sense, the course itself. This is a concept I find very interesting as I feel that the majority of my higher education experience has employed a rigid structure that students had to work to fit into. I would like to see more communication between students and educators about the ways they learn and in an online setting this could be explored further to more personally tailor learning to individuals. This does present an issue discussed in earlier readings, however, about educational discrimination as personalized learning contunies to grow in online education.

 

The second reading of the week touches on a sentiment discussed in an earlier week’s reading about how interest and curiosity based learning. I first found myself asking how limited access to potentially dark parts of academia is hurtful in training institutions until remembering one of the core ideas of education reform is creating an inquiry framework that allows students to indulge their curiosity and run with it. In this sense, digital redlining is a threat to open information and more importantly, resource allocation equality.

 

The third reading of the week focuses on perhaps the most flaw in education today which is Indigenous people’s access to a fulfilling and enriching educational experience. We have read a lot about things like cyber security in online learning, learner engagement, and open learning but it would seem that these are secondary issues in indigenous education. The needs outlined in “Design principles for indigenous learning spaces” closely echo principles I feel were very present in my education and it should be a top priority for educational reform programs to focus on engaging indigenoius people with their education.

A Guide to Making Open Textbooks with Students
Digital Redlining, Access, and Privacy
Safe Learning Spaces. Youth, Literacy and New Media in Remote Indigenous Australia.

 

Individual Post #2

The first thing that strikes me about “Teaching Online” is that the first excerpt we are tasked with reading comes from a community college in San Diego that I grew up fifteen minutes away from. I had never expected to see Mira Costa in any of my UVic studies and I am pleasantly surprised! It is interesting to read each educator’s approach to online teaching in the first reading of this week. My favorite method of social online learning is certainly Cris Crissman’s use of Second Life. I have never played any sort of Second Life-esque game but I am now realizing it might be a wonderful tool for instruction that can make the social aspect of coursework feel less like a blocky, essay to essay conversation and more of a holistic, fun and truly engaging experience. I find myself wondering while reading about all these different styles and methods of online teaching if I would struggle in these classes. I am not typically a person that does very well in a decentralized learning environment and many of these professors engage multiple outlets for their teaching. As an economics major I am seeing an opportunity for a software designed by teachers such as these that combines all of the elements of value that Blackboard, Moodle, and Second Life may have. A one stop shop for online learning that allows for simplicity, customization, and engagement.

The second reading of this week certainly dispelled the misconceptions I had about the timeline of open learning and the discussion thereof. I wonder if more articles and studies will come out on social media and its use in academia. MOOC’s and social media are the areas of open learning that most interest me as they both represent a totally new approach to social learning. The summarized articles in the MOOC section of the reading offer an interesting question about the role of classical education in the midst of a technological revolution. MOOC’s are certainly cheaper and more flexible which points to quality of education being the most interesting variable.

 

Claire Howell Major. (2015). Teaching Online – A Guide to Theory, Research, and Practice. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uvic/detail.action?docID=3318874 (pp. 88-105)

 

Jordan, K., & Weller, M. (2017). Jordan, K. & Weller, M. (2017) Openness and Education: A beginners’ guide. Global OER Graduate Network.

 

Individual post #1

This week’s topic one readings all offer a unique insight into navigating how we teach as well as learn during this growing incorporation of technology into academics. While it seems the primary focus of Stommel (2018) and Vaughan, Garrison, & Cleveland-Innes (2013) is the appropriate integration of educational technology into academics, I found that both papers had an underlying theme of, as Stommel (2018) describes it, “Good digital pedagogy is just good pedagogy.”  Stommel (2018) argues of a need for a framework that will advance education using technology as an engaging tool in collaboration with conventional education and Vaughan et al. (2013) describes how that framework should operate to inspire active curiosity and inquiry. This proposed framework promotes discourse and engagement with material, as opposed to what may become the old-fashioned method of instruction, in which a lecturer talks for an hour and students regurgitate what they remember on a test. In addition, rethinking how we educate ourselves and the overwhelming trend of technology in education allows us the ability to tailor a learning experience to a specific individual. Incorporation of online resources represents a huge opportunity to change our educational systems and institutions.

 

Regan & Jesse (2019) explain that this approach is not without its challenges as educational discrimination could be seeing a renaissance behind computer screens and appropriate usage and storage of private data is still a concern for educators, students, and government agencies. Though it may be grim, I find myself drawing comparisons between cyber security and physical safety. In the same way schools prepare for unwelcome visitors on campus, they must prepare for unwelcome parties viewing or using private data. End-to-end encryption of private data should be active in all instances of blended learning. I found it slightly unclear what the ideal balance of differential learning and educational discrimination is in Regan & Jesse (2019). How can we personalize learning to encourage engaging inquiry while not discriminating based on ability? I am inclined to agree with Regan & Jesse (2019) that educators deserve algorithm transparency in order to maintain a learning environment that can facilitate the goals laid out by Stommel (2018) and Vaughan et al. (2013) as well as avoid discrimination based education. I will be interested to see if their are other instances in the future of the line between personalization and discrimination becoming too blurry.

 

The common theme I find between the three readings this week is the possibility to revolutionize education in a way that benefits all, while being cautious not to abuse technology or let it be abused by others.

 

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

© 2021 EDCI 339 blog

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑