What Can Videos Offer in Modern Higher Education?

Laaser, W., & Toloza, E. (2017). The changing role of the educational video in higher distance education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2).

Summary. This article takes in the consideration of previous works concerning the usefulness and effectiveness of video usage in the classroom, but moves its focus to how videos are used in environments such as a MOOC and how they can create collaborative learning. The authors argue that video has “become the dominant media” in the online classroom environment (Laaser & Toloza, 2017, pg. 264). The authors then go into discussing the history of video use in classrooms followed by an explanation for different types of videos to be used, such as ‘explainer’ videos to show or explain a process/concept (Laaser & Toloza, 2017). By the end of the article the authors argue that in order for videos to be effective in an education setting they must be engaging, short, and often student produced rather than simply mimicking an in-classroom lecture.

Evaluation. The overall organization of the article provides easy skimming for readers and keeps focus.  While this article is very accessible to someone interested in current research on video in online classroom settings, it does not posses any solid research outside of brief literature reviews and historical analysis. This would indicate that this article is a good jumping-off point for more in-depth research but does not provide much else from a research standpoint.

Application. This article could be utilized as a foundation from which to find similar articles that contain quantitative and qualitative research regarding video use in online classrooms. I can also use this article as a means to brainstorm best practices for utilizing video in my own classroom or creating instructions for faculty on best practices for creating videos. There also seems to be a good bit of information on what not to do with videos in online classrooms, and this could be explored further in my own research.

Designed Videos as a Means for Storytelling?

Schwartz, D. L., & Hartman, K. (2007). It is not television anymore: Designing digital video for learning and assessment. In Goldman, R., Pea, R., Barron, B., & Derry, S.J. (Eds.), Video research in learning science (pp. 349-366). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.

Summary.  The authors of this chapter look to explore the effectiveness of designed videos for assessment in classroom learning. The authors define a designed video as a video “where the author of the video decides on its components and features beforehand,” and then the video is used as means of assessment (Schwartz & Hartman, 2007, pg. 2). They then provide a framework that can be used to map various uses of designed video in the classroom. The authors also point out their frustrations of the limited amount of research that has been conducted on video for learning or designed videos. The authors urge educators to put careful consideration on learning outcomes when decided what type of video to design for assessment and learning.

Evaluation. A strong and obvious disadvantage for this chapter is a lack of research in the area of designed videos being used for assessment and learning, and this is a weakness even the authors acknowledge. Another weakness of this paper is that is was more or less a literature review, and the authors never performed a study. The authors mention that the chapter “would have been much more effective if [they] had used video in an interactive multimedia context” during their research (Schwartz & Hartman, 2007, pg. 23). A major benefit of this chapter are the high quality figures that were created by the researcher, particularly, Figure 1, which is a map of sorts to help readers see different types of videos that can be used and the skills or purposes desired when using those types of videos. This figure serves as the framework from which the rest of the chapter is focused on.

Application. This article is applicable to my research, particularly in creating media for online courses with Culturally Responsive Pedagogy in mind. More specifically, the Native American Culture is a culture that puts a high amount of value in oral communication and storytelling – a designed video may be a means of recreating traditional storytelling methods in an online environment. Perhaps I can design videos or create instructions for faculty on designing videos using the framework set-forth by Schwartz and Hartman (2007) while still utilizing Culturally Responsive Pedagogy.

Digital Literacy in Higher Ed: A Gateway Towards Technology Acceptance?

Tang, C. M., & Chaw, L. Y. (2016). Digital Literacy: A Prerequisite for Effective Learning in a Blended Learning Environment?. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 14(1), 54-65.

Summary. This article looks carefully at the relationship between effective learning through the use technology and digital literacy within blended learning environments in higher education. The study was performed by surveying students who were currently enrolled in blended classrooms at university. The authors define a blended learning environment as one which has all resources and tools for the course housed within an LMS to allow for online collaboration, but faculty and students also meeting in face-to-face classrooms (Tang & Chaw, 2016).  There study found that “for blended learning to be successful, there is a need for students to be digitally literate,” primarily because it allows students to easily adapt to a variety of tools and learning environments (Tang & Chaw, 2016, pg. 62). The authors then go on to argue that digital literacy can be broken into three constructs: underpinnings experiential learning, and searching, which are all needed in a blended-learning environment (Tang & Chaw, 2016). In order for students to be successful in a blended-learning environment, faculty need to gauge the digital literacy of their students in order to evolve their assessments and tools used to meet students competency levels, according to Tang & Chaw, this is necessary for students to be effective in the classroom.

Evaluation. While this study revealed some interesting data, the pool of participants was small, only 176 students responded to the survey, and only 161 ended up being considered valid responses. Another issue with the study was that many students surveyed found blended-learning environments to be negatively impacting their learning experience, however, they also were students coming straight from high school,  traditionally face-to-face environment. By having students who were more used to face-to-face environments, this could have greatly impacted the results of the survey. The article itself is very accessible and well written in that it would not require a lot of background knowledge to understand it’s contents. While that data pool is small, it is still intriguing data that should not be ignored completely.

Application. This article makes the argument that students need to have digital literacy in order to adapt to classroom technology and online learning environments, and thus this somehow leads to effective learning. If this is the case, this article is interesting jumping off point for asking questions related to digital literacy within Native American communities, and comparing them to non-Native American communities to see if there is some form of correlation. As many Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU’s) do not have online programs, it is an area I am interested in exploring:

• Why is there a hesitation towards online learning?
• Could this hesitation be linked to a lack in digital literacy skills?
• In what ways can this gap in digital literacy be bridged for the Native American community in a way that is culturally responsible?

Researching Educational Technology: Stop Beating a Dead Horse, and Narrow the Scope.

Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17-35.

Summary. The purpose of the study discussed in this article was to take a more focused look on technology usage in a K-12 environment with special emphasis on the following: effective uses of technology in schools “as  topic for research,” “historical trends in research on educational technology,” and “alternative research designs for balancing internal (rigor) and external (relevance) validity,” as well as “suggested directions for areas of inquiry and research approaches” (pg. 18). The authors found that educational technology is a challenging subject to study as those researching must try to sift through the mass of past research, and focus on conducting research that is relevant and addresses contemporary issues. The first step that a contemporary researcher needs to make is identifying topics to investigate that are meaningful and can hopefully apply to the next decade of educational technology. The authors end their article with the recommendation that future researchers should “reduce efforts to prove the ‘effectiveness’ of technology, while focusing on conducting rigorous and relevant mixed-methods studies to explicate which technology applications work to facilitate learning, in what ways, in which contexts, for whom, and why” (pg. 31).

Evaluation. This article, and the literature review study that was conducted was high quality and very accessible in terms of readability and understanding. The authors clearly defined the questions they were going to explore within the study and defended their choices behind their research approach(es). The authors clearly conducted a very detailed literature review and qualitative study, which I believe is often they most effective approach when discussing educational technology.

Application. While I typically review articles that are not part of my assigned reading for my EDU 800 course, this particular piece was very impactful in terms of how I will start to steer my own research. Prior to reading this article, I had focused heavily on the effectiveness of technology, and really I need to be honing in on a specific technology solving a specific problem for a specific audience. We know, as individuals working in higher education and K-12, that technology does have an effect on learning, that is no longer a debate – now we need to focus on more specific technology and how it is being used in a narrower environment. For my own areas of interest, I brainstormed how i would apply the recommendation in this paper, to my own approach to research within this course and my program. For example, I could focus on how certain technologies can allow for storytelling within online classes and how that impacts Native American students in terms of information retention and future application.

Additional Reading
Alismail, H. A. (2015). Integrate Digital Storytelling in Education. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(9), 126-129.

Exploring Ecology in Educational Technology: The Role of Instructional Desingers

Hokanson, B. (2017). A New Ecology for Education: Refocusing Educational Technology Beyond Content. In New Ecology for Education—Communication X Learning (pp. 1-6). Springer, Singapore.

Summary. Bran Hokanson’s (2017) paper makes the argument that current education and educational research focuses on students retaining content/information, and while this is useful information, researchers should begin to widen their scope and review more cognitive traits. Hokanson likens this new approach to research and learning to instructional design, in that designers focus on “finding” and “redefining” problems: “curiosity applied and formalized” (pg. 2). A designer, similar to students, in solving problems, doesn’t simply need to know content, but needs to also know how to use the content (Hokanson, 2017).  However, Hokanson then points out that even instructional designers have a bit of disconnect from really looking at content in a meaningful way, because they are forced to separate the learning experience from the content but a subject matter expert (Hokanson, 2017). Hokanson proposes that instructional designers should instead begin to focus on developing “instructional methods for persistence and grit, fairness, and curiosity,” rather than just focusing on content retention (Hokanson 2017, pg. 6). In order to ensure continued innovation of education, Hokanson ends by calling out to all instructional designers to develop “an ecology of learning” rather than concepts, practices, and pedagogies that are only focused on content.

Evaluation. This paper is very short, concise, and accessible to any level of academic reader which makes it ideal for an introduction for further research on new ecologies of learning and the role of instructional designers. The paper was published for the HKAECT-AECT Summer International Research Symposium and so it is meant to be reasonably short, but it does read similarly to a literature review with a shorter list of references. With literature reviews there is not any research or raw data included to further show gaps or needs presented by the author, and so the reader has to take the calls-to-action at face value.

Application. This paper is very different from the previous two that I have read and reviewed, in that it does not focus on culture, diversity, or inclusion. However, I believe, as an aspiring instructional designer in a doctoral program, this provides me with the opportunity to brainstorm how instructional designers can utilize the concept of learning ecology and apply it to research on the various cultural contexts that can impact student learning. Learning ecology can be defined as “the set of contexts found in physical or virtual spaces that provide opportunities for learning” (Barron, 2006, 195). What types or sets of contexts do students of color have that are different from their Caucasian peers and how does the effect their educational experience? And in turn, how can instruction designers address these differences in a meaningful way, using educational technology, to innovate and improve the learner’s experience?

Reference
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecologies perspective. Human Development, 49, 193-224.

Online Learning & Diversity

Bozkurt, A., & Aydın, İ. E. (2018). Cultural diversity and its implications in online networked learning spaces. In Supporting multiculturalism in open and distance learning spaces (pp. 56-81). IGI Global.

Summary. The purpose of this article was to explore the way that different cultural dimensions impact the online learning environment. One of the findings related to the heightened prevalence of interactivity among individuals who live in Western-based cultures and who primarily speak English. The author’s of this article argue that diversity in an online environment is both a challenge and an opportunity for learners and educators. Due to the effects of high and low-context cultures in social environments, online learning environments, that contain social aspects, can differ greatly among participants from varying cultures. The authors also examined MOOC’s as they have very diverse populations of students. Bozkhurt and Aydin (2018) concluded that the use of Universal Instructional Design (UID) would be key in ensuring online learning environments are inclusive and respectful towards diverse student populations.

Evaluation. The article itself is clear and direct in that the two main questions posed by the authors is addressed in their research. However, their findings were anything but earth-shattering in that I was able to guess what the results may be before I actually read them. As stated earlier, the authors found that populations who spoke English where participating the most in online social environments, and those who had a Westernized-culture were also more likely to participate. The author’s study provided nice statistics and graphics for the reader, but I would have liked to see more qualitative research being done on why these specific populations were more likely to participate in these online environments.

Application. As I continue to delve deeper into instructional design and technology and how to apply new concepts to creating diverse spaces, I am noticing there is not much research available. This article was published in 2018, and was one of very few matches to various searches I performed on online learning and cultural diversity. This indicates to me that there is a serious gap in this research which makes me more determined to focus my research, within this program, on effective design strategies and technologies that allow for culturally sensitive and empathetic teaching, specifically for the Native American community within central Michigan.

Exploring Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Using Empathy

Warren, C. A. (2018). Empathy, teacher dispositions, and preparation for culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 169-183.

Summary. Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) is a mix of empirical and theoretical concepts being utilized in a way that allows an instructor to teach using empathy and respect to a wide range of students from varying cultures. In Chezare Warren’s article, “Empathy, Teacher Dispositions, and Preparation for Culturally Responsive Pedagogy,” (2017), argues that there is currently a lack in instructor training and development in CRP, and that preparing instructors in this way, will make their teaching more engaging. Warren believes that in order to use CRP in the classroom, instructors need to utilize skills in empathy (2017). According to Warren, “empathy acts as an instructional mechanism that teacher educators might use to help teacher candidates notice patterns in their own beliefs,” and “one modeled, practiced, and discussed during their professional preparation to teach, the process of applying empathy” may be employed to “expand their first-person knowledge” of a specific student’s cultural background (Warren, 2017, pg. 1). Through Warren’s literature review, he finds a lack in teacher preparedness in terms of empathy, and in-turn a lack in CRP being practiced in K-12 settings. Warren then uses knowledge gained from this literature review to develop  a model for an instructors who utilize CRP and how to practice it within teacher education.

Evaluation.  Many research articles based around pedagogic concepts most effective for diverse classrooms are more often than not written by Caucasian individuals with very westernized research practices. It was refreshing to find that this article’s author does not fit the typical mold, and thus may have fewer biases that other articles of a similar nature may have. With that being said, many of the articles cited in this writing for the literature review are older and fit very neatly into the box of Westernized writing with little inclusion or diversity of writers, however, this is not the fault of the author but an example of the lack of diverse voices within the writing community. The main strength of this article is that it is accessible, easy to follow, and readers can possibly develop their own models for teacher education using the information outlined within the article. What could have made this a stronger article is the inclusive of research outside of literature review, perhaps a survey of some form would have been interesting and desirable.

Application. This article is related to my own area of interest in terms of research because it addresses the need for more training and development on teaching to a diverse classroom. Prior to reading this article I had not been aware of CRP, and think it will be a useful concept to help guide my own research throughout my doctoral program. I want to find more research like this to help develop my own theories and pedagogy for teaching, mores specifically, to indigenous students within the United States. Given the negative connotation that Westernized education practices currently have within the Native American community, I think it is vital to provide meaningful training to educators to be more effective and respectful when teaching at Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs).

On the OER Hunt!

This week in the edX course, Introduction to Open Education, there is a strong focus on “creating, finding, and using OERS.” This is a nice change from the general focus of copyright and creative commons. I have decided to look into different OER databases and provide them to you with short summaries. Not only could this help you in your future courses, but, it serves as a nice reminder for myself.

OpenStax

According to the “About Us” page, OpenStax “is a nonprofit based at Rice University, and it’s [their] mission to improve student access to education” (OpenStax, n.d. pp.1). While exploring this site I found that it only covers five different categories of materials: math, science, social sciences, humanities, and AP.  Looking deeper into the resources they are fairly basic in the nature of their content – this content could be used in a entry level course or a general core course at a university. These OERs look and operate just like an eBook from a commercial publisher. While I personally would not use this site as it does not cover the subjects that I teach, I would recommend it to those in the previously states disciplines.

OER Commons

This website is a digital public library and covers a wider range of topics and concentrations than OpenStax. This website also offers instructors the ability to create using their resource builder, lesson builder, and module builder. The types of material available for use are very diverse, anything from case studies to simulations, you could find anything your academic heart desires. Under each OER there is a “conditions of use” which lets the user know how the user can manipulate the artifact – most are remix and share. I personally plan on using this website for my future courses as there are so many artifacts to choose from and all are at no cost to the student!

OER Knowledge Cloud

At first glance this site does not offer much visually which could turn-off some viewers who are already familiar with the previous two resources. The website does have an FAQ which does a decent job of answering the most basic questions regarding OERs and creative commons. When searching their database the list of items that appear are hard to read and uninviting despite how good their content may be. Honestly, this website did not offer much and I would not really recommend it to anyone searching out innovative OERs for their classes.

Keep in mind there is a vast amount of OER databases and I only covered three for the sake of time – plus no one wants to read while I drone on about my opinion on websites all day. Instead I will include a link where you can find a list of high quality OER databases that I hope you will enjoy:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/infotech/chapter/oer-database-list/

More Credits – Less Commercial Textbooks

In regards to textbooks, the question has been posed: “Why don’t faculty come together, collaborate, and create their own textbooks and resources for their courses?”

The most common and simple answer is time. Faculty do not perceive having the time to invest in creating and regularly updating course materials. However, a group of faculty may be able to achieve more when collaborating than they think.

Currently, at the University I am employed at, the director of my department has found a way to increase the number of new online courses created through a cohort model. This model allows for multiple faculty members to work together, review work, and give suggestions to one another during the course of the design process. Each faculty member is also given a list of individuals within the university that could assist them in various areas – from media productions to library services.

My question is, can this cohort model be applied to the creation of OERs? While it may not be feasible to do this for every online course, could it be used for the required core courses?

Are we really taking full advantage of the talent and the knowledge of our faculty by using commercial textbooks?

I don’t think that we are.

To me, using commercial textbooks is an indication of the priorities of the faculty in that department. While I do not want to demonize or scrutinize those who use commercial textbooks, I do think it is feasible for faculty to come together to design OERs.

As stated in the week 3 lectures in the edX Introduction to Open Education course, Dr. Wiley discusses the idea of incentives and the alignment of incentives. Faculty currently may not see the benefits of using an OER because they are not being “compensated” for their time. However, if students do not have to pay for course materials, it is more likely that students will take more class, and isn’t that the goal of a University? The university does not get paid for adopting commercial textbooks, the university gets paid for students enrolled in courses.

With all of this in mind, is it really that wild of an concept to have faculty come together and create OERs for their courses?

Paying it Forward with Creative Commons

Have you ever found yourself sitting in the Starbucks drive thru and you pull up to the window only to find out the person in front of you has paid for your order? What exactly did they get from this transaction? Certainly, they were not paid or rewarded with anything tangible, but they probably did receive a feeling of happiness that comes along with paying it forward. What if that same feeling of paying it forward could be applied to OERs and creative commons?

This week, in the edX MOOC: Introduction to Open Education, there is a focus on Copyright, the Public Domain, and the Commons. While reviewing this module’s videos a concept really stood out to me: the concept of different types of transactions earned from OERs and creative commons, other than monetary transactions. In the third video presented this week, George Siemens (2017) asks, “shouldn’t someone who creates content earn money from it?”

Siemens (2017) then begins discussing the concept of different types of transactional entities such as recognition or exposure received from a published work. As an individual that is trying to build their career in higher education, specifically educational technology, I find that this type of transactional entity is exactly why I take no issue in producing content or artifacts for “free.” Siemens (2017) also talks about another form of transactional entity which is just fueling the thing you are passionate about, for example, volunteering at an animal shelter – you aren’t being paid with money but you are paying yourself with the satisfaction and internal fulfillment by offering your time and effort. Creating and distributing OER’s is just another form of volunteerism, specifically for the educational community – you create it because you are passionate about sharing knowledge and building on the current foundations of ideas.

So with all of this in mind, why is it that so many academics are still hung-up on the need to have their work copyrighted without offering creative commons? As an academic myself, I can understand the desire to share ideas with my fellow academics, as well as earning some coin in the process. However, I understand that by not allowing my work to float along in the world of creative commons I am stifling my ideas as well as the ideas of others who may use them as building blocks in the future.

While I understand the need to put food on the table and provide your family/self with a sense of financial stability, does only creating content for the sake of monetary transactional entities go against everything academics stand for? Is there a happy middle where content can be created and more than one type of transactional entity can be obtained?

 

References

Wiley, D., & Siemens, G. (2017). Copyright, The Public Domain, and the Commons (part 3). Retrieved from https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:UTArlingtonX+LINK.OEx+3T2017/courseware/92ac80880b244befbb4ebc69391a7755/937f64e5eb774acab948d2090e9e558a/?child=last