Subterranean ethics and online learning

Subterranean ethics and online learning is drawn from a thoughtful thesis that looked at higher education student behaviour and practice from an ethical point of view (Kitto, 2005). The students were engaged in an online learning environment through a learning management system at an Australian regional university. The thesis argued with some conviction that shifting discourses from both educators and students encouraged and facilitated a different standard of ethical behaviour with relation to online learning. As Web 2.0 social media becomes more common in our learning environments and in our community engagement strategies it is perhaps timely advice to revisit our ethical propositions in relation to our investment in the human aspects of communication, collaboration and learning.

References:

Kitto, S., 2005, Pedagogical Machines and the Governing of an Australian University, Unpublished Thesis, Monash University, Australia

TPACK as a guide for new technology

TPACK has been presented by Mishra and Koehler (2006) as a way of organising the requirements for incorporating new learning technologies into the learning design process. TPACK allows educators to conceptualise and organise the knowledge and skills that are required for successful learning design. Mishra and Koehler (2006) and Bower et al (2010) place emphasis within the TPACK conceptualisation on the intersection between technical, pedagogical and content knowledge as the location for the successful integration of new learning technologies (See: http://tpack.org/tpck/images/tpck/a/a1/Tpack-contexts.jpg).

In Bower et al’s (2010) article they have utilised Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) Taxonomy of Learning, Teaching and Assessing with it’s knowledge and cognitive process dimensions to illustrate an approach that aligns task focused teaching activities with student thinking processes to assist in the design for on-line learning.

The knowledge dimensions are; factual knowledge - elementary disciplinary based information for problem solving; conceptual knowledge such as higher order schemas, categorisation hierarchies, and explanations; procedural knowledge – such as the application of processes; and meta-cognitive knowledge – or understanding of the social self. Cognitive processes include: remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating.

The pedagogical approaches considered by Bower et al (2010) relate to the level of negotiation between educator and student and the expectation of creative production including: a transmissive approach in which information is streamed to students; a dialogical approach in which examples are discussed and ideas exchanged; a constructionist approach in which development occurs by individuals creating an item; a co-constructionist approach whereby groups of student collaborate to produce item/s for assessment and learning.

In adopting this approach a particular technology is selected by first pre-planning the requirements for the learning design by reviewing the learning aims and objectives. This requires careful consideration of the desired outcomes of the course. The design process would then entail consideration of the type of content that would be represented, the type of pedagogy to be adopted, and the preferred ‘modality of representation’. Using a structure design approach would assist in ensuring that the technology was not leading the learning design process and introducing unwanted limitations into the learning environment.

References:

Bower, M., Hedberg, J.G., Kuswara, A., 2010, A framework for Web 2.0 learning design, Educational Media International, Vol. 47, No. 3, September 2010, 177–198

Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., 2006, Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

Updated learning outcomes

The learning outcomes in the CECR course profile currently state that 'on successful completion of this course, students should be able to:

·         understanding of how conflict arises through the social construction of environmental and technological risk,

·         appreciate the role of community engagement and conflict resolution within planning processes

·         understand the range of approaches to public consultation, their benefits and limitations 

·         learn how to involve the community in water planning and management.

·         demonstrate communication and organisation skills in planning for, undertaking and reporting outcomes of public engagement processes, including conflict resolution, through case study analysis and practical assignments'.

Following a review of the 'Creating and using effective learning outcomes' document revised by Professor Rob Reed (CQUniversity) changes to the learning outcomes have been made (see below). Comments from students who have completed the course (and others) would be appreciated. 

'on successful completion of this course, students should be able to:

·         explain how conflict arises through the social construction of environmental and technological risk,

·         analyse the role of community engagement and conflict resolution within planning processes

·         integrate the range of approaches to public consultation, assessing their benefits and limitations 

·         integrate  community involvement in water planning and management.

·         demonstrate communication and organisation skills in planning for, undertaking and reporting outcomes of public engagement processes, including conflict resolution, through case study analysis and practical assignments'.

Assessment and practical application of course material

One of our concerns in designing the CECR course is to have a balance between theoretical and practical or applied course material. The underlying philosophy is based loosely on a constructionist approach in which understanding of key concepts and the application of these to particular situations is hopefully encouraged.

The best way to ensure that the course is meeting those aims is to receive feedback not only through the assessment items for the course but with regular feedback from the course participants.

Please post your thoughts on the course.....

Internationalising CECR

A misconception about the internationalisation of university courses is that they are specifically designed for students who fit the DEST classification of international students.  This is not the case with CECR or many other CQUniversity courses. The students that I have engaged with through online learning have in many cases global perspectives through there work commitments, cross cultural connections, family histories etc. The internationalisation of aspects of CECR is embedded to an extent in the student activity, and assessment items in which students are encouraged to contextualise their reported activities. Understanding different jurisdictions and cultural sensitivities while grounding engagement strategies within a global perspective would seem to be a fruitful practice.

Reflecting on community engagement courses is this evident?

Visualising students through online distance education

One of the challenges of designing online course material is the visualidsation of the student cohort that the course is aimimng to support. Previous research (Carr-Chellman and Duchasel ,2000; Mitchell, Dipetta and Kerr, 2001) suggests that transferring traditional course material onto the web does not fully utilise the benefits of the online learning environment. Also that much course material is based on past experiences with older technologies. However there is evidence that students also learn from past experiences presumably using older technologies. The question is how do we ensure the alignment of new technology, new learning design paradigms and flexible student learning environments.

For this course the first student exercise is to introduce yourself to the other students and teaching staff . This is one simple means of engagement in which an understandsing of the student cohort can be visualised from the course designer. 

While static measures of student behaviour (weblogs etc) give some indication of student behavior dynamic interaction (navigational paths, blog interactions) can improve the visualisation of the student cohort by course designers.

Social networks are an area that could be of great benefit in personalising the online student environment.

I am interested in your thoughts on this.......

References:
Carr-Chellman, A. and P. Duchasel (2000). "The ideal online course." British Journal of Educational Technology v.31 n.3 p.229-241.

Mitchell, C., T. Dipetta, et al. (2001). "The frontier of Web-based instruction" Education and Information Technologies v.6 n.2 p.105-121.

Course introduction

This course provides students with an environment in which to develop an advanced and critical understanding of community engagement.  It uses these concepts of community engagement to analyse stakeholders’ claims in order to address their needs and issues relevant to water planning, which in turn requires an examination of conflict resolution.  As part of this learning process, students will prepare a consultation plan in relation to a particular water catchment; apply best practice communication and consultation techniques to the issues; and critically evaluate the ensuing community engagement processes for ongoing improvement.

Aims

·         To appreciate why community engagement enhances water management.

·         To learn how to involve the community in water planning and management.

·         To develop an understanding of how conflict arises through the social construction of environmental and technological risk.