After lunch, the FLANZ awards are announced.
The second keynote is with Derek Wenmoth who presents on the
topic ‘future focused flexible education’.
Started with a review of how flexible learning has evolved.
To begin, f2f and correspondence education were quite separate. However, equity
requires a sharp relook to allow for access to all. Teaching and instruction
for both f2f and correspondence delivery based on teaching and delivery.
Disruptions began occurring in the 1990s as the www emerged. LMS started to be
developed. Online and elearning began in the mid-90s. Told the story of how, in
the mid-90s, country secondary schools could network to offer shared teaching
for subjects with small number of students. This reversed students going to
boarding school and the effects on the town which was able to retain its
secondary school. The next disruption was the increase in ownership of mobile
devices. Mlearning allowed for home/school/www to merge and the increase of
blended learning through flipped classroom and virtual online schools. What
then happens now? There is shift of the ownership of learner – eventuating in
personalised/adaptive learning which is about knowledge building communities
and boundary-less organisations – allowing networked/connected learning. Proposed
ubiquity, connectedness and agency as the main themes. Ubiquity relates to
anytime, anyplace, anywhere with the shift to cloud access through wifi and on
mobile devices. There is now a merging between the formal/informal and the
physical/virtual. Connectedness refers to having a sense of being a part of
something that is bigger than ones self; the capacity to benefit from
connectivity for personal, social, work etc. the importance of social networks,
learning how to communicate across many medii, connectivisism etc. Agency is
having choices and the ability to act; informed enabled empowered learners; and
shifting ownership of learning. See Washor, E;, & Mosakowski, C. (2013).
Check Hanna (2002) – evolution of programme design – product
orientation and standardisation to customisation and student need orientation.
Challenged the audience to see beyond the future
developments (AI, chat bots, neural transfers, adaptive learning, mobile
learning, AR/VR, ) and to see how these must be deployed to try to meet the
real challenges of the future (over population, food/water supply, global
emissions, climate change, religious intolerance, cultural assimilation,
unemployment, nano-technology etc.)
Then a series of presentations.
Firstly, Dr. Gloria Gomez with ‘OB3 media-rich documents
with embedded discussions: lifting learning performance and engagement through
interactive design.’ Ara has several programmes using OB3 and has found it
especially appropriate for co- and social-constructivist pedagogy. Shared a
study using interaction design study to gain entry into the study of novel
educational practice. Summarised the 6 principles of the bridging design prototype
approach and the concepts used in understanding the data gathered. Rationalised
the need for OB3. Then provided an overview of how OB3 works. OB3 interface
allows for - no need for technologist in preparation of OB docx, students
engage in synchronise discussions with teacher within the document and students
engage in authoring curriculum. User
interface is familiar with cut/paste and drag/drop. Discussions can inserted
anywhere into the document in the form of text, images, videos, audio recordings.
Used case study from 10 years of use by Otago/Sydney Master of Ophthalmic basic
science course. Video of how OB3 works provided background. When compared to
Creative Classroom Framework (CCR) and the NMC Horizon report – OB3 helps
students move towards become co-constructers of learning and leads to deeper
learning and critical reflection.
Then Andi Sudjana Putra and Alan Soong from National
University of Singapore with ‘operationalising an online ‘design your own
module’ using the community of inquiry framework. Introduced the programme
Design your own module (DYOM) with students as partners (SaP) and Community of
Inquiry (COI). DYOM allows student to explore learning beyond their own
discipline, using self-directed approaches through MOOCs or to engage with NUS
teachers/admin staff or industry leaders. Objects of DYOM to provide
flexibility in planning their studies without disrupting their normal
structured disciplinary studies. Also to encourage students to broaden their
knowledge and encourage lifelong learning. Provided examples of a wide range of
topics. Summarised the study on better understanding and evaluation of DYOM.
SaP framework includes aspects of co-learning, co-design and co-developing
anchored by 5 principles – foster inclusive partnership, nurture power-sharing,
accept partnership as a process of uncertain outcomes, engage in ethical
partnerships and cooperation. CoI includes social, cognitive and teaching
presence but also by supporting discourse, setting climate and supporting
collaboration. Provided details of the context of the DYOM. Use https://padlet.com/andisputra/3a659ijac65xsytr
to see example.
Alan shared the findings from students survey post-DYOM.
There was increased student engagement and motivation; increased understanding
of the experiences of others; and enhanced student-student partnership. Students
attain ownership of their learning.
After afternoon tea I attend sessions by Professor Cheryl
Brown from University of Canterbury on ’Open textbooks: What’s stopping us and why we need them’ with work by
Zhanni Luo and Maansa Bajaj Prakash. Defined text books as a manual of
instruction in any science or branch of study. OER covers any type of educational
material. Open textbooks can therefore be defined more widely. Cost of text
books have increased and students are likely to seek alternative resources to
access textbooks when cost is a factor. Adapted a survey used at Otago University
– Stein, S., Hart, S., et al (2017). Student views on the cost of textbooks.
Used a snowball crowdsourcing approach and gathered over a 1000 participants. Over
80% were required to purchase a physical textbook, with 18% required digital
materials. More costs for science and engineering students. The majority did
not buy the textbooks! So what are they using? 56% did not use textbooks and
relied on resources provided by lecturers. Very few actually used filesharing,
borrowed from friends etc. Many did not use the library either!! Reasons were
inconvenient time, inability to highlight/annotate, limited loan time, unawareness
of library services and unavailability due to limited number of copies. 70% did
not know about OER. Without textbooks, students were worried they may be
missing out and some had to make substantial sacrifices to be able to purchase.
Those with textbooks were frustrated when the textbook as not used or were not
relevant. Some solutions – cut cost by using OER and not prescribing, capture
alternative sources, clearly communicate what content is relevant in textbook,
reflect on why, share resources in class, use OTs and adapt for context, don’t directly
link textbook to assessments, get students to generate quiz Q & As. Recommend
range of textbooks, peer rate resources, and start small to build content,
collaborate with colleagues and invite students to contribute.
And Dr. Lynnette. Brice from the Open Polytechnic with
‘closing the distance with an open smile’. – the impact of emotion in ODFL
experience. ODFL is largely mediated through technology but emotion is a human
response. Defined ODFL in the context of emotional associations. Therefore,
open and flexible = remove barriers but distance = the opposite. Shares case
studies from ODFL learners and how their emotional state/s affect their
learning. Summarised some understandings of the power of emotions in learning. Then
summarised Maori knowledge of emotions in an educational setting – summarised as
he kare a roto – the ripples within. Emphasised the need for the ‘smile’ in all
of the strategies and processes the institution, support and teachers project
to learners.
