Timelines and Peer Reviews When Designing Courses

Designing and creating your own online course can be a daunting task! I remember back to what my mother used to tell me. She would say, “You can put hard work and time into a project now to save time later, or you be lazy now and spend double the time later.” This quote has always stuck with me as I work on any type of project. No matter if it is working on projects around my house, at work, or for my college class, the amount of time and energy I spend up front truly dictates that amount of time I will have to spend later. Take for instance designing an online class. It is going to take a substantial amount of time to design the course so that those who participate can easily navigate and work through the lessons and activities without getting confused and/or frustrated. I have found in my experience of creating training sessions for teachers in my school district that I have to put about 3 times the amount of time into the creation of the training as is the length of the training itself. However, with adequate planning, in the end, my job as the facilitator becomes more streamlined which saves me time during and after the training.

As I have designed my online course for my master’s class this semester, I have also found that it is extremely time consuming to create the course so that it is easy to navigate and also has clear and concise instructions for the students. I have been fortunate to have a fantastic peer reviewer. She has been so detailed in her feedback to me on items that I might want to address. Questions she has raised about terms that I use within the instructions that she did not understand made me realize that if new teachers to our school district were to take my course, they may not understand these as well. As a result, I have tried to give more information within the instructions to explain these terms. Additionally, she has looked at the activities that I have created so far and she has had questions on due dates and how the collaborative pieces would work. This has also made me go back and rethink what I have written so that the students will have a better understanding.

As a peer reviewer myself, the work of my peer reviewer made me think more about the work that I reviewed. I could tell that my peer reviewer spent time watching my videos, looking over my assessment rubrics, and reading through step by step instructions that I created. With her great feedback on each of these, it made me do a better job when I looked over another students\’s work. I realized how much the peer review of my work helped me make a much better product. I want to have the same influence on the student that I peer review.

As I mentioned earlier, I spend a majority of my time at work preparing for upcoming trainings and meetings. Each of these requires a large amount of time to prepare so that they run efficiently. When thinking about a professional timeline for preparing materials, I feel that I am involved with this every day. Professional timelines make it so that there is usually not enough time in the work day to properly prepare. Many times, I have to spend hours outside of the work day to complete the tasks in preparation for the activities that are to come. However, I know that if I put the time and effort into the creation of my materials now, my training or meeting will go much smoother for my students and myself.

Canvas LMS Structure and Instructional Design of a Course

As I have begun to design a course in Canvas for my Technology based Learning Environments master’s course, I feel that I have been at a slight advantage over my classmates. This year, our school district purchased the Canvas Learning Management System (LMS) for all teachers and staff to use. Although I never received any formal training, I have learned to use the system through the built in videos and documentation in Canvas. As a result, I have been training teachers on how to use the system for several months now.

With that said, as I worked on my instructional design document, I already had a fairly clear picture of what the Canvas LMS had to offer. I knew the structure of Canvas and how I could use the different pieces in the design of this course. Additionally, I have been able to share some of my knowledge with classmates for this course since the LMS was new to them. Although I do not know everything there is to know about Canvas, I know enough to create a course. Additionally, I learned a couple of things while conducting the peer review for my classmate. I did not realize that there are built in templates that can be used to get a course started. Knowing this will help me with teachers in my district that have a tough time figuring out the organization for their course.

The design model of Canvas is working great for me. I am dividing my course up into Modules that the participants will work through. I have set up the modules with pre-requisites so that students must work through them in sequential order. However, students can always go back to previous modules to review content if needed. Since this course will be offered to my teachers over a 10 week period, this will help me in facilitating the course while it is in progress.

Canvas is a very user friendly atmosphere for both the designer and the student. Additionally, the Help documentation and videos are easy to access and understand. If I have any questions at all, I can quickly find answers to them. The only thing I have found so far that I would like to see enhancements made is in the rubrics. First, the rubric does not align the rating columns as you add additional ratings to the rubric. It really bothers me that they do not line up. However, the interactivity while grading student assignments makes it easier for me to forgive this issue. Furthermore, the rubrics cannot be shared with other teachers or colleagues through the Commons area. This has been a major frustration for our teachers. They would like to be able to share these rubrics with each other. I have sent in an enhancement request to Canvas. I hope they receive enough requests to make this a top priority for future upgrades.

Reflection on Instructional Design in Canvas

Creating content in a learning management system can take time. As I work with teachers, the one barrier that so many feel they cannot overcome is the amount of time it takes to create the course. However, one must look at how the pedagogical transformation will enhance the learning environment for the students (Bowen & Lack, 2012). In Castleberry ISD, we are using Canvas LMS as we begin to transform the learning environment to a blended learning environment. However, this can look daunting to a teacher that has never reaped the benefits of a blended learning environment.

As I have begun to build my course in Canvas for my master’s course at UNT, I have seen that the task is overwhelming at first. So far, the instructional design and the organization in Canvas have both gone very smoothly. I have already organized my learning modules and have begun to enter the content. I really like the rubric builder where I can create interactive rubrics to go along with assignments, discussions, and quizzes. As I move forward in my development of the course, I will be embedding screen-cast videos and other web 2.0 applications into the content. The ability to embed this content will help students be able to work through the modules without having to leave the course to find the resources.

The challenging part of creating the course has been the amount of time it takes to create quality learning modules online. However, this is not something new to me. I know that when I am creating training modules for work, I can spend days working on a training that is going to be an hour and a half. What I have found in the past is that the more time and energy that I put into the development of the course, the smoother the training goes, and my students are much more successful in completing the course. All in all, I have not found the creation of the different applications in Canvas to be challenging. Canvas is very user friendly and if there are areas that I cannot figure out, the documentation they provide in their support section has been very beneficial.

I look forward to this next week when one of my classmates will be doing a peer review of what I have already created in my course. Having the peer reviewer look over my course this early in the development will certainly help as I continue to develop the course. I also look forward to reviewing the course for my peer. Not only do I look forward to providing them with constructive feedback, but I also hope to gain more insight into how Canvas can be implemented for online learning.

Reference

Bowen, W. G., & Lack, K. A. (2012). Current status of research on online learning in postsecondary education. Ithaka SandR. Downloaded April, 10, 2012.

A Different Look at Instructional Design

As I have worked my way through the Learning Technologies master’s program at The University of north Texas, I have had the opportunity to learn more about instructional design. In my initial instructional design class, we were introduced to the ADDIE model (analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation). However, there are many other models available to use when designing instruction. As I began to research the other models, one of the models seemed very interesting to me. The Kemp Model of instructional design looked like a model that I would prefer to use when designing instruction. In this model, Jerold Kemp list nine components of instructional design (Akbulut, 2007).  

1.      Identify instructional problems and goals to address the problems

2.      Examine learner characteristics

3.      Identify subject content and how the tasks will support the goals

4.      State instructional objectives

5.      Sequence content within units for logical thinking

6.      Design instructional strategies that support learner mastery of objectives

7.      Plan the instructional delivery

8.       Develop evaluations to assess objectives

9.      Select resources to support instruction as well as learning activities

Akbulut (2007) goes on to explain the main points of the Kemp Model are what makes it different from other models. First, the Kemp Model looks at instruction from the viewpoint of the student by looking at the learner characteristics.  Second, the model illustrates that instructional design is a continuous process. And lastly, the model puts greater emphasis on the management of the design process.

As I examined the Kemp Model and compared it to the ADDIE model, one of the main differences I found was that the Kemp Model allows for flexibility. The Kemp Model does not require the designer to work in a linear fashion through the steps as the ADDIE Model does.  In the Kemp Model, all components work together so that the instructional design is continuously considering each component. Additionally, in the Kemp Model, the designers may not use every single component to design the instruction.

The more I looked at the Kemp Model, I realized that in my daily tasks of designing instruction in my career, I incorporate the components of this model more than any other model. With the flexibility allowed in the Kemp Model, it allows for me to constantly redefine the instructional design that I am creating.

It is important however to distinguish the differences between an instructional design model as opposed to a theoretical model. An instructional design (ID) model is put in place to identify and address a problem where the theoretical theory determines how the problem will be presented to the learner. The ID model gives structure to the creation of instruction where the theoretical theory focuses on the implementation of the instruction and how the students will learn the objectives. So in the end, a good instructional design will include activities that support the theoretical theory so that mastery of the stated objectives may be reached. When working with a client, the instructional designer must keep an open line of communication line so that the theoretical model implemented and the instructional model used will produce the training needed for the client. 

Reference

Akbulut, Y. (2007). Implications of two well-known models for instructional designers in distance education: Dick-Carey versus Morrison-Ross-Kemp.Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(2).

Peer Editing Experience on Design Document

Over the past week, I have had the opportunity to revisit and revise my instructional design document that I am creating in order to build an online course in Canvas. During this revision process, I have received feedback on my work and I have given feedback to another student on their work. I found the process from both perspectives to be enlightening. In order to make sure my critique had some depth, I found Susan Doyle’s (2013) list of peer editing guidelines that helped me through the process. She listed five suggestions for the peer editor; read the paper two times, read as if you are the defined audience, do not fix but suggest, be constructive, and give detailed comments. This gave me direction as I began to peer edit.

First, I was able to peer review another student’s instructional design document and add my critiques to his paper. I found the process to be enlightening. As I read his paper, I found myself wanting to make sure that I was giving him feedback in the same manner that I hoped to receive feedback back from my own peer editor. This made me really think about what I added to the comments. On the other hand, I found it rather difficult to not try to change what he had in his paper to formats that I preferred. As an example, I found his goals and objectives to be numbered in a very confusing way. I did not know if this was only confusing to me, or if others that read the document would also be confused. I suggested changing the numbering system if he desired. All in all, I hope that he appreciated the suggested changes.

Second, I received the peer edits back from the student that reviewed my instructional design document. At first, I skimmed through the paper and could not believe all of the comments that were posted. However, as I began to tackle her suggestions in each comment, I could see how much better my instructional design document was becoming. The constructive critique added clarity in several areas and definitely corrected some word usage and grammar issues. There was only one comment that I did not change the content. This comment dealt with one of my objectives and where it was placed in the list. I had purposefully listed the objectives in that specific order so that this objective preceded the following objectives. All in all, I was very appreciative of the suggested edits and took advantage of using these suggestions to improve my paper.

In most of my work that I do, whether in my college class or on the job, I always appreciate another individual taking the time to read through what I have written and making suggestions on how to make my product better. I truly believe that peer reviewing only makes for better work. I will continue to use this strategy as I work on future projects.

Reference

Doyle, S. (2013). Guidelines for peer editing. Retrieved September 12, 2015, from http://web.uvic.ca/~sdoyle/E302/Notes/Peer%20editing.html

A Reflection on Problem-Based Learning and Blended Learning

I am completing the first week of a new course on Technology-Based Learning Environments. As part of the first week’s assignments, we were asked to read Savery & Duffy’s article on problem based learning as well as to find our own article on the instructional design of an online/blended environment. As I read through the other students posts, I found another article that I found interesting by Dalsgaard & Godsk on transforming traditional lectures into problem-based learning. With our school district piloting the use of a blended learning environment in two classes, I found these articles to be beneficial as I wrap my mind around this learning format. This post is my reflection on each of these articles.

Savory & Duffy (2001) are proponents of problem-based blended learning because they feel that this model allows for constructivist learning to occur. Constructivists believe that students learn through interactions with their environment to construct new meaning to questions that they have. As these question arise, students can collaborate together to find the answers and construct new meaning. When a problem-based learning (PBL) instructional design is implemented, it fits right into this theory. As I read through the article, I reflected back on a class that I was fortunate to observe last school year.  One of our Junior English teachers, James Ivey, had his students participate in a problem-based learning environment for the final six weeks of the school year. I observed what Savory & Duffy established as necessities for a problem-based learning environment to be successful. Students were presented a problem of how to create a lesson plan for teaching a novel. Students formed small groups and each group selected their own novel. Students worked together in and out of class to create their lesson plan. Each group then worked on a presentation to present to district administrators to pitch their lesson plan. The teacher acted as facilitator of the project and would give feedback at scheduled checkpoints as well as during class time. Savory & Duffy concluded that a problem-based learning environment allows students to take ownership of their own learning. This is exactly what I observed in Mr. Ivey’s classes.

Francis & Shannon (2013) also propose that a blended learning environment where face-to-face learning infused with online components is a best practice teaching style. However, for this change to take place, pedagogies must shift from the traditional classroom where the teacher is the owner of all knowledge, to a classroom where the students take control of their own learning. For this change to take place, adequate professional development and support must be established to reduce teacher fears of this change. Additionally, for students to be successful in a blended learning environment, they must receive authentic feedback to keep them engaged in their learning. When the teacher facilitates the learning by continuing to guide students with probing questions and constructive feedback, student satisfaction increases. I look forward to working with teachers to begin to transform their classrooms into a blended learning environment.

In reading the third article by Dalsgaard & Godsk (2007), I found that their description of transforming traditional courses to a blended learning environment was tight in line with the other two articles I read. They also believed that a blended approach aligns perfectly with the constructivist model where students create new meaning to questions posed. However, they did propose that there can be challenges in making this transformation. In a blended environment, students are presented with a problem with an open-ended solution. The challenge is to create support materials that allow for open ended solutions.  Another challenge is changing the roles of the student and the teacher. Even as I observed Mr. Ivey’s classes, I could see that this is a difficult switch for both parties. Students are used to the teacher just giving them the answers. Students must be taught how their role is changed and that they have the opportunity to search for answers in a way that the teacher may not have thought about. Additionally, the teacher must accept their new role and continue to lead by asking probing questions and facilitate by providing constructive feedback. Addressing these challenges will help produce a successful blended environment where students take control of their own learning.

References

Dalsgaard, C., & Godsk, M. (2007). Transforming traditional lectures into problem‐based blended learning: challenges and experiences. Open Learning, 22(1), 29-42.

Francis, R., & Shannon, S. J. (2013). Engaging with blended learning to improve students’ learning outcomes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(4), 359-369.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. CRLT Technical Report No. 16-01.

Canvas Rolling Out to IMMS Students

It is the second day of school in Castleberry and our 8th grade students are already being introduced to our new Learning Management System (LMS), Canvas! In Mr. Watson's Technology applications classes, students logged in for the first time today. Without any direction, Mr. Gavin asked his students to find his class and open it up. Without any questions asked, every student quickly found his course and were where they needed to be! For the students, the system seems to be very user friendly!

Second, Mr. Watson had created an assignment for the students to complete. The assignment required the students to open a Word document and then type all the ways that they use technology in their everyday lives. One they were finished, they saved the document to their user folder and then uploaded it to Mr. Watson via the upload in the assignment. This time, Mr. Watson walked them through the process to make sure there were no issues.

Once the student's assignments were submitted, Mr. Watson and I looked at what the teacher would see with these submissions. All I can say is that it is incredible!! When the teacher opens the assignment in SpeedGrader, it automatically opens the Word document and allows the teacher to leave comments and enter a grade without having to download anything! With a simple click of an arrow, you are on the next student and ready to grade!

However, if you did find the need to download the individual Word documents, it was very easy to click on the Export link and the files are downloaded to your Downloads folder as a zipped file. When we extracted and opened the zipped file, the students first and last name was already assigned to each file name! Teachers will no longer have to try to depend on the students to name their files correctly!

This is going to be a super year, and Canvas is going to help streamline how lessons are delivered and how assignments are turned in and graded!