This is a text version of a talk I recently gave at the iMoot, http://2015.imoot.org/.  It was also published at eLearning Industry (http://elearningindustry.com/top-5-tips-online-facilitators).

One of the biggest mistakes that can be made is to think about online facilitation as an extension of face to face teaching.  It isn’t.

If you are also the designer of your online course there are things to consider that will help when it comes to facilitating the course.  Usability and user-friendliness are vital if learners are not to be frustrated right from the start.  First impressions count, we all know that.

Designers can provide

• Clear Instructions
• Formative activities with clear feedback

Facilitators should think about

• Previous courses
• Welcoming instructions
• Link checking
• The facilitator should review any feedback that is available from previous versions of the course.
• What were the pressure points for participants?
• Were there clear instructions on access?
• How to participants welcomed into the course?
• Were sources of help and information easy to find?

All navigation and other links (particularly external URLs) should also be checked before the course begins.

Formative activities can include small quizzes which are clearly marked as “practice” activities and are non-threatening.  Don’t skimp on the feedback – just another chore when composing the quiz.  “Good job”, “Well done”, “Try harder” are all equally unhelpful.

Facilitators are encouraged to construct their own checklists for a course.  See http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/distance-learning/a-checklist-for-facilitating-online-courses for a helpful example.  A communications plan constructed before the course starts helps you remember what to do and when to do it.

Using a model

A model is a way of seeing the world.  Gilly Salmon’s model (www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html) is a “scaffolding” model.

It helps facilitators to know and to plan what they should be doing as a course develops over time.  The model shows the development of the facilitator role, first off a lot of technical support and motivation via welcoming messages is needed.

As the course develops, the participants become less dependent upon the facilitator and more engaged with each other.  Therefore group work is going to be much more effective at later stages than earlier stages.    Most of the “heavy lifting” will be done during stages 3 and 4.

Using icebreakers

The aim of icebreakers is to reduce anxiety and promote interactions.  Getting to know people is important in reducing anxiety.  You can have activities that are completely unrelated to the course material (stranded on desert islands, favourite food/colour/music, magic wands) which promote the fun element.

You can also relate to expectations to discover what these are and make this a group activity.  In f2f workshops you may have participants introduce each other, you can do this online too.  If you can do some of these and relate them to the course content I personally feel that that is a good approach.  As a facilitator you get a feel for what people expect and maybe what they already know.

Pay attention to learner motivation

In order to motivate and engage the learners you need to know why they are taking the course – another use for an icebreaker.  Were they made to or did they volunteer – this can obviously have a tremendous effect.   Give them good reasons to participate, if they are bored or un-motivated be aware that they might be negative in their dealings with others and be prepared to email them privately.  Otherwise group work could be affected too.

The course should have some good formative activities, at last some of which are comparatively easy.  Your engaged and committed learners might feel that they are too easy but they won’t mind too much while your more nervous types will be encouraged by success.  In some circumstances a competitive element is useful – leader boards for formative quizzes for example.

Using forums – make your expectations clear

Forums can relate to models like Gilly Salmon’s too.

They are versatile and have many uses.  Not every forum has to have a lively discussion.  The purpose of the forums you place in the course should be clear – what’s expected of the learners (if anything).

Here are some criteria for effective facilitation in guidelines from the University of Tasmania.  These will be useful criteria when you evaluate the course or set up a feedback survey.

• Participants post messages and participate in discussion forums regularly
• Participants express honest opinions
• Participant-to-participant collaboration and teaching are evident, and spontaneous moderating occurs among the participants
• Participants show concern and support for the community.

Modified from Collison, Erlbaum, Haavind and Tinker as quoted in: http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/202748/Online-facilitation-and-the-role-of-the-Tutor.pdf

Finally

There are no really hard and fast rules about online courses and their participants – every group is different, something face to face teachers already know.

However, these few guidelines may help you to think a little more about how your course will run and where it might not meet your expectations.

As well as taking into account the difference between to teaching face to face and online, be careful that the online facilitation experience doesn’t get bogged down by the technology.  Every activity, group, individual, blog, wiki, forum should have a clearly

This article was originally published in Band of Brothers – The Southport School Magazine.

November 2012

Richard Jones, Director of eLearning

It is no secret that the world is changing fast and the pace of change is itself accelerating.  The graph below uses one measure (transistor count) to show that we are now at a point where the constant doubling of computer power every 18 months (according to Moore’s Law) is beginning to have a massive impact.

Within two years, personal computers and mobile devices will exceed the computational power of the human brain.  Computational power is not, of course, the whole story of our amazing brains but this fact gives good reason to believe that some current trends in software will lead to devices of great power and flexibility.

 Graph: Numbers of transistors in various microprocessors, 1971 – 2011.  Source Wikipedia.

The implications for TSS boys are that the world of work or further study that they will enter may well be very different to the one we see now.  We have seen spectacular growth in the use of mobile devices both for leisure, personal organisation and work since the release of the iPad in April 2010 and the iPhone before that.  Mobile devices today are as powerful as the desktops of 2 years ago.  This is a trend that will continue for at least the next 8-10 years.

Boys in Year 8 now can expect to have devices four times more powerful than those of today when they leave TSS and that also implies that the devices available then will be perhaps twice as powerful as the brain.

The trends in voice recognition, location-based services, augmented reality and language translation are clear and, with devices four times more powerful, will have reached greater reliability.  Tools such as Siri, Wolfram Alpha and Google Translate are still fairly primitive but becoming more impressive as the technology develops.  Who would have expected that we would be able to point a smart phone camera at Chinese characters and have them translated into English on the spot?

The goal of education today is not so much information retention and recall; it is to promote higher order thinking in boys: evaluating information, synthesizing from multiple sources and generating new ideas.  It remains largely true that formal examination assessment methods are slow to adapt to this trend – so we must still teach boys how to write properly with pen and paper for now.

To support this model of education TSS is adopting a BYOD program from 2013 for boys in year 8 – 11.  Every boy in these years must bring a device to school so that it can be used in the classroom.

If boys prefer, they may take a device from the school against a refundable deposit.  The school currently owns approximately 400 devices (iPads and netbooks) as a result of funding under the Rudd government’s DER program.

The primary purposes of the BYOD program are to:

• Enhance access to school resources (especially Learning@TSS)
• Encourage student use of Higher Order Thinking skills such as synthesis, analysis, and creativity
• Foster student autonomy in learning

BYOD can assist in these processes by providing, for example, tools for web-based research, access to school databases, note-taking, mind-mapping software and to creative tools such as audio, video and image editors and similar applications.

Secondary benefits include

• The student can select a device appropriate to their learning styles and needs
• Every student has organisational tools at their disposal (calendars, planners, diaries)
• Group activities can be mediated, recorded and reflected upon by participants

Research also indicates the importance of autonomy to student engagement and deeper learning, we are teaching for tomorrow as well as for today.  Therefore, at TSS, we believe that boys should have a device of their own choosing – other schools have taken the view that it is easier to manage a specified device, such as an iPad.  However, such a decision may lead to teaching to the device and its applications and thus focussing more on the technology than the learning.

A recent survey of students at TSS indicated that they very much value Learning@TSS and the current device policies which have been implemented.  Over 75% of 150 students responding to the survey used Learning@TSS at least once per day using one of 10 different devices they bring to school (or in some cases, using the school supplied mobile devices).  Just 20% of students said that they would prefer to have a school-supplied device.

With the powerful combination of mobile devices and access to TSS teaching materials and interactive activities online available via Learning@TSS the traditional model of classroom teaching will change over the coming year.  There will less need for lecture-style activities and at least some of this material can be accessed by boys wherever they are. Teachers will spend more time working with pupils and organising pupils into teams and groups.

We will reduce some of our fixed computer labs since the mobile devices will allow students to access the internet and our library databases for research as well as allow them to present the results of their learning in a range of different styles and media.

Our teachers will need considerable support to adapt to a new style of teaching and this will be provided by a greater emphasis on professional learning opportunities where best practice is shared.  We will introduce new forms of professional learning based on our research projects into eLearning which have been funded by grants from the Australian Government Quality Teaching program and Independent Schools Queensland in each of the past three years.

In order to ensure that the devices are suitable for classroom use, we have specified some aspects that all devise should have and some that are recommended:

Required

• The device screen needs to be at least 7 inches (measured diagonally by convention)
• The device must be capable of connecting to our Remote Desktop Services. Please ask our IT Department for advice, if you are not sure about this, contact information is given below.
• The device must have office software such as a word processor (Word, Pages), a spreadsheet (Excel Numbers) and presentation software (PowerPoint, Keynote).

Recommended

• Microphone and still/video camera.
• File transfer software that works either with Dropbox or Remote Desktop Services.

The following devices are all suitable:

• A modern Windows laptop or netbook (2 years old or less) with Vista or Windows 7 or 8.
• Apple Macbook Pro or Mac Air with OSX.
• An iPad (2 or 3) or similar Android tablet.
• A Microsoft Surface tablet

Some pros and cons of various devices can be found on our website:

http://www.tss.qld.edu.au/Parents_and_Students/Senior/AcademicProgram/ictdevices.aspx

For the school, there are very significant financial implications.  It is expensive to install, maintain and constantly upgrade our wireless coverage across such a large area.  However, without the investment in this, our BYOD program simply won’t work efficiently or effectively.

We have installed high density wireless devices and upgraded our fibre optic backbone and more investment will be made in these areas for 2013 as well.

While we can recover some of the spending by reducing the number of fixed computer labs we still need to maintain those used for specialist teaching in technology, the arts and music, for example.

We also need to invest in more sophisticated virus and firewall software with such a large number of student-owned devices on campus.

Further information can be obtained from:

• Mr Richard Humphreys, IT Manager. humphreys@tss.qld.edu.au. 07 5531 9955
• Mr Richard Jones, Director of eLearning. jones@tss.qld.edu.au. 07 5531 9851
• Ms Jo Inglis, Head of Learning & Teaching. inglis@tss.qld.edu.au. 07 5531 9852

The Horizon report from New Media Consortium (http://www.nmc.org/nmc-horizon/) for K-12 schools for 2015 has recently been released,  the full report will be released in the (Northern Hemisphere) summer.

The report identifies key trends for K-12 education and highlights some challenges these trends will lead to.  In the first section it looks at those trends which are accelerating tech adoption in schools:

• Schools need to be more flexible and adaptable in response to changing culture and economic demands.
• The subject-based approach of secondary schools is outdated and conflicts with trend towards the use of multidisciplinary  teams in problem solving.
• Students need to be exposed to project-based, problem-based and other student-centred active learning approaches.  By solving problems students should learn how to apply not just absorb knowledge.
• The new approaches also require re-designed learning spaces – basically chairs and desks just get in the way.
• Big data – the use of data collected by systens that enable teachers to get a better, more accurate picture of the progress and hence the need of individual learners.

For keen observers of the educational technology scene over the last 10-20 years, these aims may not be particularly new.  However, the issue has long been how can school structure and culture be adapted – given that there is widespread resistance to change and an apparent reluctance of politicians to invest political and actual capital in this area.  The  report goes on to deal with “solvable challenges: Those we both understand and know how to solve”.

• Creating authentic learning opportunities
• Integrating technology into teacher education
• Student internet and data safety

Interestingly, the need for ongoing teacher education does not get a mention here or in the next section on difficult challenges, some of those are seen as:

• Developing effective digital assessments
• Personalising learning
• Rethinking teacher roles

It seems to me that the role of teacher professional learning is going to be vital.  The inertia that has so far prevented any real change in many schools is still present and is largely a result of organisational and individual resistance to change.  Like anyone else teachers see the threat of change and often perceive it as a threat to their professionalism.  This needs to be directly addressed by those responsible for the further development of schools at state and national level.

It is always interesting to see the report’s take on time to adoption of learning trends.

One year or less (2015–2016):

• BYOD
• Cloud computing
• Makerspaces
• Mobile learning

Of these, currently, BYOD is gaining widespread acceptance now – although there are resisters.  The use of mobile phones is still a burning issue in many classrooms – new opportunity for learning activities or distraction?

Two to three years (2017–2018):

• 3D printing/rapid prototyping
• Adaptive learning technologies
• Information visualization
• Learning analytics

The promise of adaptive learning technologies – intelligent systems that adapt themselves to the student’s needs – is still to be realised.  These systems have shown themselves to be clumsy and ineffective in the past.  Their potetnial is huge but I’m not sure technology is sufficiently advanced as yet.  We will however, see the growth of many systems offering interpreted data from learning systems to the classroom teacher (LMSs, Dashboards and similar systems).

Four to five years (2019–2020):

• Badges/Microcredit
• Drones
• Visual data analysis
• Wearable technology

I wouldn’t have thought drones and badges were this far away but we will see.  They key for me is getting prospective users of information on student achievements to acknowledge their credibility – to become familiar with the metadata concept to evaluate the credentials of the awarding body and so on.

One large question that arises from this report is the absence of any mention of MOOC’s such as Coursera.  Although these organisations are just getting started and are pretty primitive in their teaching methods (video lectures plus quizzes) they should eventually have some influence on schools – and I would have thought within the time frame of this report.

Read the full report here.

There’s a lot of buzz around this topic in New Zealand and elsewhere right now.  Here’s my take based on 25 years’ experience teaching Computer Science to School students.

There is much more to Computer Science than being able to program in high level languages.  Much more significant is the ability to think in abstract terms (objects, patterns) and to think through problems to solutions.  Also important are the abilities to scope a problem, test a solution and provide well-written documentation.

The typical Level 2 and 3 NCEA programming projects tend to focus almost exclusively on such things as writing the correct Python syntax for a pre-determined problem which is tightly specified.

This kind of skill is currently available elsewhere in the world for, perhaps, $10.00 per hour.  Therefore it offers very little benefit to companies like Orion Health which are providing resources and desperate for more computer scientists.

Taking this down to lower ages in school is a completely pointless task which may well put off students who could be interested later on.  What younger students need is a gentle introduction to the general principles which are useful to computer scientists.  This is exemplified by the kind of activities available on Tim Bell’s Computer Science Unplugged website[1].

In addition one should question whether schools should be entirely dedicated to any business agenda.  If this were the case we would all be busy training people to use Office 365, producing plumbers and any other trades which are currently in short supply.  The business of schools, by and large, is education rather than training.

On the teaching front, large numbers of other subject teachers are entering into computer science departments in schools, willingly or unwillingly.  Often there is insufficient professional development for such teachers.  Some Principals will give as the reason that students are already adept at using computers and won’t require much assistance.

Anyone who has taught computer science in a school will tell you that this belief is sadly mistaken – certainly as regards most students.

In any given segment of the New Zealand population there are, perhaps, 10-15% of people who have a natural aptitude for the sort of abstract thinking required of working computer scientists.  There are perhaps another 35% who can be taught many of the skills required.  In other cultures, based on personal experience of teaching in international schools, the percentages can be higher.

For most students the true value of a computer science program resides in the problem-solving and planning skills that such a course requires (a well-planned and coherent computer science course not a collection of bits and pieces).  This type of course requires that students be working on a topic of interest to them that they have scoped.  They should not be given a prescription.  Estimating the complexity and time required to solve a problem using a computer is a useful transferable skill.

Writing the solution is relatively easy if the project is planned well.  It does not have to be a solution that requires a tailor-made solution requiring a coding solution.  Some problems of scale can be solved using typical office software.  It may be that MS Access has a dreadful reputation among serious database designers.  Nevertheless the skills learned on such a project are the important ones to focus on.

Testing and documenting solutions are tedious processes which can teach the need for persistence.

The problems that industry and the New Zealand economy face will not be solved by teaching purely coding skills.

Susan Smith Nash and Michelle Moore

Packt Publishing April 2014

ISBN 978-1-78328-681-2

http://www.packtpub.com/moodle-course-design-best-practices/book

This book falls into two main parts.  The first deals with general issues such as preparation, planning and configuration of Moodle sites.  These sections give a broad brush overview of the software, introducing the major features without overload on specific issues.  Readers are often referred back to the relevant Moodle documentation for the detail.

The importance of planning course outcomes is stressed with some excellent strategies for courses structure and learner assessment.  Bloom’s taxonomy gets good coverage and UDL is also described.

There is useful guidance on how to efficiently use the range of features in course configuration.  Some sections, such as those on groups and groupings may be too brief to be fully useful.  Some aspects of themes and usability are also mentioned.

In the second section a range of course types are discussed in the context of a Moodle implementation – these are self-paced independent study courses, cohort-based teacher-led courses, student-centred project-based courses and online community courses.  For each course attention is paid to appropriate course settings, themes and usability, resources and activities which are most appropriate for the different types of learner.

Although the book is said to be suitable for a wide range of teachers, the audience most likely to benefit are educators new to online learning in general and Moodle in particular.  It could be an excellent overview for managers who know little about Learning Management Systems in general and those who might be considering an implementation in their organisation.

For this audience this book should be regarded as a very useful framework – it certainly won’t be the only book you want.

Experienced Moodle teachers and administrators may not find all that much of relevance however unless they are also new to the field of eLearning pedagogy and design.

The book’s format and frequent links to web resources mean that it works better as an eBook than a print publication.