Meaningful Feedback in Online Professional Development

Just as online teaching and learning became a necessity for K-12 and postsecondary students during the COVID-19 pandemic, so too did online professional learning activities for educators at all levels. Not only have professional development (PD) activities primarily been held in virtual spaces over the last two years (both synchronously and asynchronously), but often the learning goals themselves have orbited around the use of educational technology in service of the immediate improvement of online teaching and learning experiences.

Of course, even prior to COVID-19, many professional learning and development enterprises took place online in order to meet the needs of busy educators. Asynchronous, “on demand” courses and workshops are commonly used for PD so that instructors may access materials whenever, and however frequently, they want. Additionally, online PD allows instructors to access valuable resources they might not otherwise have access to, both locally and globally. In a case study performed by Gaumer Erickson, Noonan, and McCall (2012), special education teachers in a rural district were able to collaborate with educators and experts in a non-rural district via an online PD enterprise. Participating teachers felt that the modality was an asset to their learning since they were given resources and feedback from experts the district might not otherwise be able to provide due to geography or lack of funding (Elliott, 2017).

As mentioned by participants in this case study, one of the key contributors to a successful professional learning experience is the opportunity to receive meaningful feedback. Feedback and participant interaction is part of an active professional learning experience wherein an adult learner is implementing their learning in an authentic, problem-based activity (Teräs & Kartoğlu, 2017). Feedback may come from a coach or instructor or from peers (or both), but regardless of the source, getting professional feedback is necessary in order to support learning implementation and critical reflection. Feedback can feel like an automatic and organic part of the learning process in face-to-face settings. For example, if an educator is being observed by a coach or mentor in their classroom, they would expect feedback to be shared directly following the observation. Similarly, if a peer group is working on a project together in a shared space or workshop, they will naturally give instant formative feedback, usually verbally, to each other as they collaborate.

What about with online PD? For context, the operational definition I’m using for online PD is any Internet-based form of learning or professional growth that an educator is engaged in (Elliott, 2017). How might feedback for professional development look similar or different in an online learning context? To what extent might feedback look different in an asynchronous environment? If PD is going to increasingly be situated in online environments, what tools are available to help assist in delivering meaningful feedback?

Teräs & Kartoğlu (2017) approach online professional development (OPD) through a framework called authentic e-learning. Authentic e-learning has a nine-point framework, the points of which are well supported in PD research and adult learning theories independent of the mode or learning environment (Teräs & Kartoğlu, 2017). The nine points for an authentic e-learning framework they propose are as follows:

1) Authentic context

2) Authentic tasks

3) Access to expert performances and the modeling of processes

4) Promoting multiple roles and perspectives

5) Collaborative construction of knowledge

6) Reflection

7) Articulation of understanding

8) Coaching & scaffolded support at critical times

9) Authentic assessment

Numbers 5, 8, & 9 are bolded on this list because each of these points requires interactions and communication among learners and instructors which will often take the form of meaningful feedback through a virtual medium. Within this learner-centered framework, technology should not be thought of primarily as a mode of delivering content. Rather, it should be viewed as a platform for facilitating interactions. Knowledge may be transferred using technology, but that’s not it’s most important role in e-learning. When technology is a conduit for a dynamic web of collaborative interactions, authentic e-learning can take place (Teräs & Kartoğlu, 2017). It’s certainly possible for information to be delivered in an asynchronous format using technology as the medium, but this shouldn’t be conflated with an authentic e-learning experience. Interaction are key.

Perhaps one of the most effective ways to facilitate online interactions for professional development purposes is to create a Community of Practice (COP). Names for similar groupings that surface in the literature include Professional Learning Community (PLC) or a Community of Inquiry (COI). Despite any nuanced differences that may exist between the three, COPs, PLCs, and COIs have quite a bit in common. They are all entities distinct from formal learning and organizational structures, and are particularly valuable for their ability to extend beyond them. Members gather around shared experiences and/or goals and create their own communication channels and behavioral norms (Liu et al., 2009). These communities can exist within an organization, or they might consist of professionals across multiple organizations, but they are meant to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and tools and encourage critical discourse in a manner that is beneficial for professional growth for each of its members. COPs are inherently collaborative, and can often be formed around solving authentic, work-based problems (Liu et al., 2009). Though coaches, mentors, or experts may participate in COPs, peer interaction and collaboration are at the heart of a COP, and thus feedback is most often sourced from peers. COPs serve as a promising way to deliver timely, effective, relevant, and individualized support for adult learners while simultaneously decreasing the need for feedback coming solely from “experts.”

Online learning communities can be formed in a variety of different platforms, but regardless of the tech tool or medium, or whether the communities engage synchronously or asynchronously, COPs should have a medium in which they can engage in discussion, peer review, and collaborative problem-solving so that meaningful feedback may take place. Referencing a prior post in March of 2021 (Global research collaboration and the pandemic: How COVID-19 has accelerated networked learning in higher education), some notable computer-based platforms for collaborative enterprises include:

Zoom (2011)
Trello (2011)
Basecamp (originally launched 2004, significantly updated 2012)
Asana (2012)
G Suite (2016)
Figma (2016)
Dropbox Paper (2017)
Whimsical (2017)
Microsoft Teams (2017)

This list represents nine, powerhouse collaboration platforms, all of which rolled out between 2010 and 2020, and many of which depend heavily on the power and popularity of cloud storage or cloud computing, such that platform users may interact and build upon one another’s contributions in both synchronous and asynchronous ways.

When attempting to collaborate asynchronously, especially where coaching or mentoring is concerned, video review software can be another important tool to consider. Teacher education programs or instructor professional development initiatives often use video review software to conduct remote classroom observations (though of course, video review may be used in a variety of fields for a variety of purposes). GoReact is just one example of video review software. This user-friendly review software offers users the opportunity to:

Record and share videos easily using any kind of device, including smart phones
Utilize cloud-based video storage so that recording, viewing, and grading can happen asynchronously
Integrate video evidence seamlessly within common Learning Management Systems
Give and receive time-stamped feedback on submitted video evidence, both written and recorded

Though I could likely spend a great many more hours discussing possible platforms to use in service of online learning communities, I wish to conclude with this simple, summative takeaway: quality PD requires feedback; therefore, effective PD conducted online must have ample space for interactions to take place among participants. It really is that simple.

References:

Elliott, J. C. (2017). The evolution from traditional to online professional development: A review. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 33(3), 114-125. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21532974.2017.1305304

Gaumer Erickson, A. S., Noonan, P. M., & McCall, Z. (2012). Effectiveness of online professional development for rural special educators. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 31(1), 22–31.

Liu, W., Carr, R. L., & Strobel, J. (2009). Extending teacher professional development through an online learning community: A case study. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 2(1), https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=jetde

SpeakWorks, Inc. (2021). GoReact. GoReact. https://get.goreact.com/

Teräs, H., & Kartoğlu, Ü. (2017). A grounded theory of professional learning in an authentic online professional development program. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(7).

September 24, 2021

Online Teaching & Learning in Higher Education During COVID-19 & Beyond: Pitfalls & Opportunities for Access & Equity

Like so many other countries across the globe, higher education institutions in South Africa were forced to reckon with a rapid pivot to online teaching/learning in order to maintain operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 26 public universities in South Africa, 25 are residential institutions that did not allow distance education prior to 2014 (Czerniewicz et al., 2020). This scramble to change modalities in 2020 came on the coattails of nationwide student protests from 2015-2017 during which typical campus activities and courses were repeatedly interrupted at some of the largest public institutions because of the #FeesMustFall movement, a student-led initiative boycotting swift, large, and prohibitive hikes in tuition costs instituted by the South African government. At the heart of the #FeesMustFall movement was attention to the fact that systemic racism and resource inequalities left historically marginalized students most unable to cope with the tuition increase. Unsurprisingly, the scope and scale of online teaching/learning suddenly required during the Pandemic only further accentuated the obvious issues of access and equity as reflected by university students in South Africa, particularly in regards to the digital divide among the South African student population. When students had access to usual campus infrastructures, they were able to utilize tools like free Wi-Fi, libraries, and computer labs which reduced some level of disparity in regards to technology access (Swartz et al., 2018). When this access was taken away, many existing inequalities were made starkly visible, and students without expansive resource networks were left adrift.

“Across the nation, the pandemic revealed historic (and mostly forgotten) fault lines, and as silence settled down upon buzzing cities and communities and we all came to a standstill, we were forced to hear the tectonic layers pushing and shoving against one another, tectonic layers of intergenerational inequalities, unheard and ignored for too long.”
Czerniewicz et al., 2020, para. 14

This quote might just as easily be referring to the United States, especially in the weeks and months following the murder of George Floyd in May of 2020 and the ongoing discourse about racial tensions and inequalities embedded in American systems. Indeed, the relative ‘silence’ ushered in by the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the consistent hum of existing inequalities imbedded within communities, throughout countries, and across international borders which significantly impacted the ability for students at all levels to continue in their learning (or not).

**Internet users in 2012 as a percentage of a country’s population**
Source: International Telecommunications Union.

In light of the socio-political factors influencing teaching/learning in COVID-19, Czerniewicz et al. (2020) set out to analyze how issues of equity and inequality played out in the pivot to online teaching/learning in South African higher education during the pandemic, and how these concerns might have implications or offer guidance for the educational enterprise post-pandemic. In this case study, nine themes on access & equity emerged which, almost certainly, will find echoes among educators and school administrators worldwide. Some themes serve as cautions and highlight system failures, while some highlight the possibilities and opportunities afforded through online teaching/learning:

Inequalities Made Visible: the crisis made preexisting inequalities and infrastructure failures starkly visible; this included poorly-constructed pedagogies that previously failed to meet the varied and nuanced needs of real university students (as opposed to the disembodied ‘ideal’ student), crisis notwithstanding.

Imbedded in Context: the sudden shift to online teaching/learning took place within embedded contexts where gender, culture, race, geopolitical context, etc., played a part in a student’s lived experience; all influencing factors must be considered intersectionally in the learning environment, online or otherwise.

Multimodal Strategies: it became clear that in order to even come close to meeting student needs for remote learning, a ‘multimodal’ or ‘hyflex’ approach was required; this meant course content had to be highly accessible through multiple media formats, some of which were not digital.

Making a Plan: pre-existing emergency plans for instruction at both the institutional and instructional level are a necessity and must include provisions for unreliable electrical power or internet access.

Digital Literacy: student levels of digital literacy and capacity for effective navigation of e-learning tools cannot be assumed; neither can assumptions be made of the faculty/staff responsible for implementing digital learning tools.

Places of Learning: in lockdown, many students, faculty, & staff, no longer had a dedicated space to be able to engage in their scholastic duties. Students/faculty/staff were unevenly impacted and had to make substantially different sacrifices depending on their circumstances (e.g. parents with young children at home, students caring for elderly relatives, etc.)

Parity of Pedagogy: the crisis forced learning design to become more student-centered than ever before. Though there were certainly gaps and failings, instructors were re-thinking assessment strategies and intervention options in comprehensive ways.

Sectoral Stratification: similar to the first theme, the pandemic highlighted existing inequalities, this time at the institutional level. Larger/smaller, urban/rural, ranked/not ranked universities all faced different kinds of obstacles. Historically advantaged institutions fared better in their emergency responses.

Social Responsibility in Higher Education: The boundaries between higher education and larger society are porous. Universities cannot pretend they are neutral when it comes to social and economic inequities.

Perhaps central to each of these themes is a need for student-centered learning design and careful consideration for the extent to which stakeholders have access to internet and a suitable device. The pandemic has shown the urgent need to teach and support student learning no matter where they live or what resources they personally possess (Correia, 2020). In support of the third theme listed above (multimodal pedagogical strategies), Correia (2020) offers an array of concrete tools and strategies for low-bandwidth online teaching/learning that can help mitigate the impacts of the digital divide in digital education environments:

Start designing a course with three assumptions in mind: 1) The student may have limited bandwidth, data, or internet access with which to participate in the course 2) The student may be much less familiar with the technology being used than the instructor, and 3) They may not have access to tech equipment like cameras, printers, and scanners

Make frequent contact and learn about student accessibility needs. Consider the use of postal mail (with postage cost covered), landline phone calls, chat check-ins, and asynchronous video messages.

Consider how to incorporate a students’ informal learning and life experiences into course assignments and objectives; in other words, lean in to student learning that occurs offline.

Use free resources and tools profusely. OER Commons is just one example of a public digital library of open educational resources. Bear in mind, however, that where assignments are concerned, internet access may bar frequent usage, even if the tool is free.

Utilize pre-recorded lectures and transcripts for students unable to join synchronous video conferences

Use audio recordings as educational resources (e.g. podcasts), as well as for instructor-student communication. Audio recordings often result in fewer tech issues and use less bandwidth; they mitigate the need for a camera along with possible feelings of intrusion or shyness that cameras can bring.

Use alternative forms of assessment which may include portfolios, open book examinations, or discussion forums.

Of course, COVID-19 did not usher in the dawn of online education. The demand for digital education in its various forms has been growing steadily over the course of the last decade, even prior to the pandemic (Xie et al., 2020). It’s increase in popularity can largely be credited to the possibilities it provides for access and equity, including opportunities for flexibility, efficiency, the promotion of innovative and student-centered teaching strategies, access to varied (and often free) sources of information, access to global research and collaboration, and increased access/reduced costs for higher education, especially for students who couldn’t otherwise afford to attend a residential university (Xie et al., 2020). The comprehensive demands for remote teaching/learning during the pandemic has merely accelerated the adoption and acceptance of online teaching/learning in all kinds of educational settings, and it’s fair to assume that a certain level of online teaching/learning integration will define the “new normal” in education moving forward (Xie et al., 2020). Educators and educational institutions, then, must be able to recognize the potential pitfalls for access and equity as it pertains to digital education. To the extent that online teaching/learning is here to stay, educators can’t afford to ignore student needs and the ways online teaching/learning might be insufficient to meet them. And yet, there remains significant potential.

“[The pandemic] has brought into focus numerous examples of extraordinary resilience, networks and…unexpected alliances of collaboration and support, including inspiring creativity, examples of technology used for equity purposes and moments of optimism. …There is an opportunity in the moment for genuine equity-focused innovation, policymaking, provision and pedagogy.”
Czerniewicz et al., 2020

References

Correia, A. (2020). Healing the digital divide during the COVID-19 pandemic. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 21(1), 13-21. https://ezproxy.spu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=a9h&AN=146721348&site=ehost-live

Czerniewicz, L., Agherdien, N., Badenhorst, J., Belluigi, D., Chambers, T., Chili, M., de Villiers, M., Felix, W., Gachago, D., Gokhale, C., Ivala, E., Kramm, N., Madiba, M., Mistri, G., Mgqwashu, E., Pallitt, N., Prinsloo, P., Solomon, L., … Wissing, G. (2020). A wake-up call: Equity, inequality and Covid-19 emergency remote teaching and learning. Postdigital Science and Education 2, 946–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00187-4

Swartz, B.C., Gachago, D. & Belford, C. (2018). To care or not to care – reflections on the ethics of blended learning in times of disruption. South African Journal of Higher Education 32(6), 49‒64.

Xie, X., Siau, K., & Nah, F. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic – online education in the new normal and the next normal. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research 22(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2020.1824884

August 4, 2021May 23, 2022

EDTC 6104 Community Engagement Project – Professional Development Workshop for Resilient Pedagogy

For this quarter’s Community Engagement Project I have been tasked with creating a professional learning presentation or workshop on a topic of my choice which would be used to engage and provide professional growth for a selected audience. This project is meant to demonstrate my understanding of the performance indicators for ISTE Coaching Standard 3. The following is a framework for the construction of my professional development workshop for resilient pedagogy (RP).

Image Source https://www.self.com/story/what-is-resilience

ISTE Coaching Standard 3

3a Establish trusting and respectful coaching relationships that encourage educators to explore new instructional strategies.
3b Partner with educators to identify digital learning content that is culturally relevant, developmentally appropriate and aligned to content standards.
3c Partner with educators to evaluate the efficacy of digital learning content and tools to inform procurement decisions and adoption.
3d Personalize support for educators by planning and modeling the effective use of technology to improve student learning.

Intended Audience:

The intended audience is higher education instructors from all over the world. This will include attendees to a virtual Global Symposium and a group of instructors from a higher education institution in Indonesia participating in virtual PD workshops.

Chosen Topic:

The topic for this PD presentation will be Resilient Pedagogy (RP), both theory and practice. RP is an emerging instructional philosophy/framework with extremely timely implications for this current moment in education and the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the many unknowns that may introduce themselves in the form of future crisis or disruption. Though facets of RP have long been practiced by educators in the form of classroom differentiation, and though other frameworks like Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Transparency in Learning and Teaching (TILT) inform resilient pedagogy, Rebecca Quintana and her colleagues at the University of Michigan have attempted to define a more expansive type of differentiation by building upon these approaches to instructional design and extending beyond them, bringing to the forefront the need for instructors to be agile and intentional in all educational contexts, but especially in moments of crisis and change. More than just a fancy synonym for differentiation, resilient pedagogy can be defined as “…the ability to facilitate learning experiences that are designed to be adaptable to fluctuating conditions and disruptions.” Resilient teaching is an approach that “take[s] into account how a dynamic learning context may require new forms of interactions between teachers, students, content, and tools,” and those who practice resilient pedagogy have the capacity to rethink the design of learning experiences based on a nuanced understanding of context (Quintana & DeVaney, 2020, para. 8). The key to resilient teaching is a focus on the interactions that facilitate learning, including all the ways that teachers and students need to communicate with one another and actively engage with the learning material.

My intent is to create a workshop that introduces the basic tenets of RP to participating instructors, offers practical examples or RP, provides inspiration and opportunity for implementing RP, and, ultimately, helps build resilience in educators in the long term.

Image Source https://scoutingmagazine.org/2014/02/try-10-steps-help-scouts-develop-resilience/

Event Description:

This PD material will be used in two settings: 1) a virtual, Global Research Symposium in which academics and higher education instructors from all over the world will be in attendance, sharing with and learning from one another’s research enterprises 2) a PD workshop for a university in Indonesia. The Global Symposium will consist solely of a pre-recorded presentation, 12 minutes in length, with some opportunity for follow-up discussions in breakout rooms. The PD workshop will have opportunities for follow-up activities which extend beyond the pre-recorded presentation.

Concerns for this project include the fact that I must make considerations for an international audience. Providing transcripts, for example, will be important given the fact that, for many attendees, English is not their first language (though they are fluent). Additionally, since I am not currently employed as a higher education instructor or learning designer, establishing trust/rapport with the intended audience may take some extra consideration.

Length:

The pre-recorded presentation of RP content and case study examples is 12 minutes; 12 minutes reflects the presentation timing restraint given for the Global Symposium. However, there will be extended activities and reflection questions for use in a PD workshop space. Time allotted may vary depending on the workshop schedule, but my thought is that the presentation (12 minutes) and follow-up activities (30-45 minutes) might be a total of 60 minutes in an active workshop session, not including any additional applications instructors may want to add on their own time. In the workshop, time will be prioritized for instructor reflection and active participation with colleagues vs. lecture/presentation time. I am creating follow-up activities under the assumption that attendees will participate synchronously in an online format, and I may or may not be the one leading the actual follow-up activities.

Active and engaged learning/collaborative participation

This slide deck is a framework for follow-up activities, engaging attendees with reflection questions, group discussions, and suggestions for practical application. A summary of the framework is as follows:

Opportunity for brief social-emotional connection via a simple “What dog do you feel like today” slide; participants can respond in the chat with a number corresponding to the dog they associate with. It’s silly and lighthearted.
Brief recap of the most important points from the RP presentation
3 slides with reflection questions, each tailored to a different design principle of resilient pedagogy. Ideally these questions would be discussed among peer instructors who work in the same department (i.e. group discussion).
An activity/exercise which asks instructors to workshop one of their own courses for extensibility. A sample product is shown in the slide deck to model and help with direction. The hope is that instructors will each work on their own course while actively collaborating and sharing ideas with members of their discussion group.

Address content knowledge needs

This presentation/workshop on the theory and practice of RP gives educators a chance to explore new instructional strategies (ISTE standard 3a), consider use of new digital tools and resources for varied mediums of instruction (ISTE standards 3c and 3d), and build their own resilience (ISTE standard 3b) so that they are better prepared to meet the fluctuating needs of their students–especially in moments of crisis–in the future. Instructors will be invited to reflect upon barriers that may exist in their own contexts preventing them from practicing RP more robustly. Additionally, instructors will be given the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues on possible applications of RP in their course designs.

Address teachers’ needs/presentation artifacts:

The original slide decks will be shared with attendees/instructors ahead of time so that they may keep it for their own reference, view it ahead of time, and have access to references and resources with live links.
- A link to the slide deck for the pre-recorded presentation is here. It is only visible to those within my university organization for the time being
- A link to the workshop framework slide deck is, once again, here.
A recording of the presentation without captions will be provided separately as one of the deliverables for this project. Captions have been edited and a version of the recording with cc is available. I will not be sharing a link to the presentation in this blog post until after a pending publication on this RP material is released.
Additionally, a written transcript for the recording is available here. If a video platform does not easily allow for uploading the closed captions for presentation, the transcript document is both a back-up plan (redundancy!) and a possible supplement to the existing captions.

Standards reflection

3a Establish trusting and respectful coaching relationships that encourage educators to explore new instructional strategies.
- The workshop invites educators to think about resilient pedagogy as an approach to instructional design which helps make courses resistant to disruption.
- This presentation and follow-up workshop gives practical guidance for what it looks like to design a course for extensibility, flexibility, and redundancy.
3b Partner with educators to identify digital learning content that is culturally relevant, developmentally appropriate and aligned to content standards.
- Takeaways can be immediately applicable, and the topic is especially relevant given the many ongoing challenges faced by schools and universities during the COVID-19 pandemic. It’s meeting higher education instructors where they’re at and speak into the experiences and challenges they’ve already faced over the last year and a half.
- Instructors are encouraged to make the learning relevant to their specific discipline and teaching role. They are also encouraged to think critically about their own course design and reflect on their approach to teaching/learning, which is always valuable.
3c Partner with educators to evaluate the efficacy of digital learning content and tools to inform procurement decisions and adoption.
- Opportunities for reflection are provided, including questions which ask instructors to reflect on their relationships to the digital tools they use (or would like to learn to use) in their teaching. For example:
  - What new educational technology tools or platforms could you experiment with as you think about adapting a course for different modalities?
  - Do you know how you would approach teaching a course if students had unreliable internet access?
3d Personalize support for educators by planning and modeling the effective use of technology to improve student learning.
- The workshop slidedeck models a possible way to plan a course with extensibility in mind. It helps educators take concrete next steps towards resilience.

I look forward to delivering this project to real instructors in higher education with hopes that the theory and practical application of RP will be a source of inspiration, confidence, and clarity in the ever-changing landscape of teaching and learning, especially with the continued unknowns of the COVID-19 pandemic.

_______

May 23, 2022:

Building on the foundation set forth above, I have created a screencast on the theory and practice of RP to be used as a resource for higher education instructional faculty. This screencast is 13 minutes long and may be used as an asynchronous option when a live presentation/workshop isn’t an option.

July 28, 2021August 4, 2021

Culturally Responsive Teaching in Digital Learning Environments

In 1994, author and educator Gloria Ladson-Billings introduced the term “culturally relevant pedagogy” into the vernacular of the education world. This term was used to describe an approach to teaching that engages learners whose experiences and cultures have traditionally been excluded from mainstream settings. Building on the work of Ladson-Billings, in 2010, Geneva Gay sought to further operationalize this idea and started using the term “culturally responsive teaching” (CRT) to refer to the use of “cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them.” (Gay, 2010, p.31)

Since 2010, many educational researchers have built upon the original work of Ladson-Billings and the core principles behind CRT to produce meaningful research about best practices in teaching that, ultimately, improve academic outcomes and help develop positive cultural identities for historically marginalized students.

But what about a digital environment? What does CRT look like in practice when teaching and learning are mediated through technology? This post seeks to explore some effective examples of CRT at work in digital classrooms, especially in higher education environments.

To begin with, it will be helpful to further flesh out what CRT “looks like” in a general sense. According to Gay (2010), effective CRT will be:

Validating: CRT utilizes cultural knowledge, worldviews, background experience, and performance styles to make learning encounters relevant and effective for students while affirming their differing strengths and contributions to a classroom environment.
Comprehensive: CRT will support students of color in maintaining connections with their communities while cultivating an ethos of camaraderie and shared responsibility; acquiring individual skills and knowledge will not be held separate from the development of the whole learner.
Multi-dimensional: CRT will require attention to curriculum, context, climate, instructional techniques, classroom management, assessment, and student-teacher dynamics and the role each of these plays in a learning environment.
Empowering: CRT will promote personal confidence, courage, and initiative on the part of the student, ultimately enabling students to be better human beings.
Transformative: CRT is explicit about respecting the cultures and experiences of traditionally under- and misrepresented populations (especially African American, Indigenous, Latinx, and Asian students), and it recognizes existing strengths in these students that may be further enhanced in the learning process.
Emancipatory: CRT resists the constraints of the historical norms in education and expands ways of knowing in a manner that is psychologically and intellectually liberating. This requires making authentic knowledge about different ethnic groups accessible to students and acknowledging learner agency in course design.

Woodley et al. (2017) offer some excellent examples of CRT in an online classroom that use these six principles as the framework and rationale:

	Sample A	Sample B	Sample C
Validating	Pre-assess technology comfort level	Incorporate student introductions. Asking specific questions about students’ cultural identities/ backgrounds and providing examples can help students feel comfortable in sharing (Rhodes & Schmidt, 2018)	Utilize an icebreaker activity or question that provides a platform for establishing social presence
Comprehensive &Multi-dimensional	Assign projects with opportunities for exploring possible solutions to issues of equity and social justice (also Emancipatory)	Use a discussion board as a platform for a respectful debate where multiple solutions or perspectives can be explored	Create pathways for students to use different mediums for turning in work; this may include options for submitting directly to an instructor and not on a public board
Empowering & Emancipatory	Create opportunities for leadership or facilitation of group work and discussions for all students	Allow students to co-design the course and establish mutually-agreed upon norms (Rhodes & Schmidt, 2018)	Let student interest drive discussions and deliverables with relevant application to their own lives as a motivating factor
Transformative	Provide program and/or course orientations to help build community and comfort levels in an online environment	Create opportunities for weekly synchronous or asynchronous course discussions among classmates	Share knowledge; utilize student presentations for assignments

Each of the above samples were drawn from the expertise of instructors in a higher education context, but many–if not all–can easily translate to a physical classroom (perhaps using technology to enhance the activity), and/or a K-12 learning environment. The thread that runs throughout each of these examples is the student-centered nature of CRT. Student self-expression, tech-supported or otherwise, allows students to “…name their own reality. Teachers, in turn, are able to foster a space where their students’ lived experiences are legitimized and incorporated into the ‘official’ curriculum” (Frederick et al., 2009, p. 11).

When it comes to technology’s potential for supporting student-self-expression, Ferlazzo (2020) highlights some recent, “teacher approved” digital tools and platforms that have worked well for online teaching/learning, especially as they have proved their merit for online teaching/learning during the pandemic. Each has the ability to put the elements of instructional design listed above into practice.

Flipgrid: At its most basic, this free tool can be used by students and instructors to produce short video introductions at the beginning of an online class to increase social presence, but it also has the ability to support video dialogue betweens students. This increases opportunities for collaboration, response, and expression. Additionally, “English- and world-language learners can practice new speaking skills while previewing and editing their video responses as they master pronunciation” (Ferlazzo, para.15).
Google Slides: Also free and easy to use, when students have editing access to a Google Slide deck they can collaborate, observe, and modify each other’s work in real time creating a much more interactive classroom experience which also gives opportunities for students to act as co-constructors of learning.
Peardeck: Easily integrated with Google Slides, Peardeck allows various add-ons to be shared on slides during a synchronous class session including various types of formative assessments (polls, matching, multiple choice, etc.), drawing boards, interactive questions, audio recordings, etc. Peardeck helps create varied ways for students to express themselves and their learning in a digital classroom.
Padlet: Often used like a virtual whiteboard, Padlet is a great way to share thoughts in real time in a virtual class. The image search option is oft-cited as a nice option for students to vary their mode of expression online, especially for English Language Learners.
Quizizz, Baamboozle and Kahoot: These are (also free) online game/quiz platforms which can easily be used for assessments or reinforcement activities and are especially helpful in online environments when completed by teams/small groups. Additionally, problem-based learning can be used to make learning meaningful/relatable to students, and to help them engage in critical inquiry (Rhodes & Schmidt, 2018).

Some additional suggestions I’ve come across include:

iMovie: If students have access to this app already on a personal device (often included for free with Apple products), iMovie is an approachable way for students to create more detailed and creative video responses for a project or presentation wherein they can also see themselves reflected (perhaps literally) in the final product. The final product can then be shared out to their classmates in either a synchronous or asynchronous fashion. A video production is also a good example of an alternative form of assessment.
Kialo: Free for educators, Kialo is a tool designed to frame a debate or map a logical argument. It’s specifically designed for classroom use and promotes thoughtful collaboration and critical thinking while helping students construct well-reasoned arguments on important topics.

At the end of the day, culturally responsive educators are reflective. They continually examine their own cultural perspectives and biases to ensure that they are creating environments that are supportive to all learners, and they continually think critically about their course design (Rhodes & Schmidt, 2018). To conclude, then, I’d like to leave you with a set of meaningful reflection questions from Rhodes & Schmidt’s 2018 article, “Culturally responsive Teaching in the Online Classroom” which may prove helpful as you ponder the design of your own learning environments and experiences, now and into the future.

Inclusion:

How do I acknowledge the cultural identities, such as racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, and gender identities, of my students?
How do I learn about my students and what they feel is important about the learning experience?
How do I encourage my students to connect with their classmates?
How do I ensure that students feel free to point out class policies that they feel are discriminatory or biased?

Attitude:

How do I help learners feel positively about content and the learning process, in addition to incorporating learner autonomy into curricular planning?
How do I encourage students to communicate with each other and with me on a deep and meaningful level?
How do I incorporate materials and resources that represent the diverse backgrounds of my students?

Meaning:

How do I help students connect to the material in ways that are based in critical reflection and critical inquiry?
How do I incorporate a variety of learning activities and instructional practices?
How do I integrate practical applications into learning activities
How do I require students to examine the curriculum from multiple perspectives?

Competence:

How do I use authentic and effective assessment that allows them to demonstrate mastery in a variety of ways?
How do I encourage students to take ownership of the learning process?
How do I create space for students to assess their own learning?

References:

Ferlazzo, L. (2020, November 8). 10 favorite online teaching tools used by educators this year. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-10-favorite-online-teaching-tools-used-by-educators-this-year/2020/11

Frederick, R., Donnor, J., & Hatley, L. (2009). Culturally responsive applications of computer technologies in education: Examples of best practice. Educational Technology, 49(6), 9-13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44429734

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers College Press.

Rhodes, C. & Schmidt, S., (2018, November). Culturally responsive teaching in the online classroom. E-Learn Magazine. https://elearnmag.acm.org/archive.cfm?aid=3274756

Woodley, X., Hernandez, C., Parra, J., & Negasj, B., (2017). Celebrating difference: Best practices in culturally responsive teaching online. TechTrends 61, 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0207-z

July 15, 2021July 26, 2021

Professional Development & Technology in Higher Education: What’s Working?

As a former classroom teacher, I am deeply aware of the potential professional development (PD) activities have to positively improve teaching practice; it’s the same potential that PD has to overwhelm instructors and use up valuable time, energy, and resources that might have been used elsewhere in jam-packed school schedules.

Image Source: https://www.appreciationatwork.com

When it comes to effective use of educational technology and online teaching in particular, thoughtful, engaging, and practical PD is essential. Of course, with the onset of COVID-19, schools and instructors at every level were required to make rapid, comprehensive pivots to online teaching and learning, and ed tech specialists, coaches, and instructional designers found their hands full with the overwhelming need for support and training teachers needed in a condensed time frame. There’s no doubt that the emergency shift to online teaching and learning necessitated by the pandemic was immensely challenging for both students and educators, but it’s also fair to say that there has been more than a few success stories related to online teaching and learning, some of them because of effective PD efforts that were made well in advance of the pandemic. Considering this, I am curious to explore some recent exemplars of professional development activities in higher education related to pivots to online teaching/learning, COVID-related or otherwise.

To frame this exploration, it’s helpful to first examine some of the research shaping current approaches to PD in education. In 2014, the Boston Consulting Group working on behalf of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation surveyed over 1,300 stakeholders in education (teachers, administrators, instructional coaches, etc.) on topics related to PD (BCG, 2014). Research suggested that teachers at all levels were overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the majority of PD offerings. Reasons cited included a disconnect between classroom observations by administrators and meaningful coaching interactions, a lack of trust or authority from those leading the PD initiatives, PD presented as an exercise in compliance instead of a meaningful opportunity for growth, lack of opportunity for collaboration with peers, lack of choice, and lack of relevance to immediate needs (BCG, 2014). Suggestions for future practice included a decreased dependence on external vendors for PD workshops and increased attention to teacher-driven needs and collaboration time, as well as considerations for leveraging technology to boost collaboration and streamline workloads (BCG, 2014).

These findings were also supported by Cho & Rathburn’s 2013 case study on PD in higher education. Similar to the findings of the Boston Consulting Group, Cho & Rathburn (2013) found that a traditional workshop format for higher education PD constrained active participation, collaboration, and the creation of usable knowledge for teaching. Cho & Rathburn (2013) proposed a problem-based learning framework for PD in higher education which:

Lets relevant problems guide the learning activities
Has participants self-direct their learning and take responsibility for knowledge acquisition
Encourages social interaction and collaborative knowledge construction among instructors.

Data from this particular case study supported a teacher-centered approach to PD. It was favored by university instructors and facilitated the creation of usable knowledge which could be immediately applicable in their own teaching contexts. In this case study, the PD opportunities were provided online and asynchronously in order to counteract constraints of time and place and allow instructors to engage with the PD as it was fitting for their individual departments (Cho & Rathburn, 2013).

In another look at PD initiatives in higher education, Schildkamp et al. (2020) make note of the presence of certain “building blocks” which made for effective professional development and use of educational technology during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this research, the two PD initiatives examined by Shildkamp et al. (2020) were effective because they prioritized:

The effective use of technology and ways it might need to be customizable to specific content area needs
Active learning activities supported by experts
Clearly defined goals focused on the instructor’s own practice and use of technology with attention to long-term sustainability

Image Source: https://www.eventbrite.com/blog/eventbrite-academy-create-better-events-ds00/

In an effort to highlight and streamline some of the similarities and standouts of the research initiatives mentioned above, I find it helpful to reference Vicki Davis’s list of tips for highly effective PD activities that can serve as a meaningful guide for PD facilitators and coaches in any academic environment (Davis, 2015):

1. Use What You Are Teaching: don’t just lecture about a helpful strategy or tool, model it and have participants actively engage with it

2. Develop Something That You’ll Use Right Away: if it’s relevant, instructors should be able to implement a takeaway within a few weeks

3. Receive Feedback: create opportunity for feedback on the PD “session” as well as peer-to-peer feedback on implementation of the takeaway

4. Improve and Level Up: create opportunities to workshop the initial takeaway with ongoing PD and support; effective PD isn’t “one and done”

5. Local Responsibility and Buy-In: institutional/school-wide support is needed, it’s not just the responsibility of teachers/instructors to internalize and implement PD initiatives

6. Long-Term Focus: avoid the temptation to chase fads or take a “flavor of the week” approach to PD (especially in regards to technology) which can make takeaways feel disconnected, erratic, and short-lived; make sure PD aligns meaningfully with long-term goals of the school/district/institution

7. Good Timing: consider the larger ebb and flow of the academic calendar and when instructors will be in the best position to be fully present for a PD initiative

8. Empower Peer Collaboration: give teachers/instructors the time and opportunity to learn from one another.

Finally, I’d like to highlight a comprehensive example of effective PD for online learning sourced from a community college in Hawaii. This approach to PD places professors in the seat of the student in an online learning context, and it puts many of the tips listed above into action. At Kapi’olani Community College on the island of Oahu, Instructional Designer Helen Torigoe was charged with training faculty in the process of converting courses for online delivery (this was prior to the onset of the pandemic). In response, Torigoe created the Teaching Online Prep Program (TOPP) (Schauffhauser, 2019). In TOPP, faculty participate in an online course model as a student, using their own first-hand experience in the program to inform their course creation. As they participate in the course, faculty are able to use the technology that they will be in charge of as an instructor (which include programs like Zoom, Padlet, Flipgrid, Adobe Spark, Loom, and Screencast-O-Matic), gaining comfort and ease with the tools and increasing their overall digital literacy. Faculty also get a comprehensive sense for the student experience while concurrently creating an actual course template that they will use in the near future. Instructors receive guidance, feedback, and support from the TOPP course coordinator and their peers in the course. Such training is mandatory for anybody teaching online for the first time at Kapi’olani Community College. A “Recharge” workshop has also been created to help faculty engage in continued learning for best practice in digital education. This ensures that faculty do not become static in their teaching methods as they are consistently exposed to new tools and strategies, while also gleaning reminders and refresh opportunities in support of long-term sustainability (Schauffhauser, 2019). Institutions that participate in online education need to provide adequate training in both pedagogical issues and technology-related skills for their faculty, not only when developing and teaching online courses for the first time, but as an ongoing priority in faculty professional development (Bolliger et al., 2014).

I am curious to know how Kapi’olani Community College fared during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic and how faculty and students dealt with the switch to fully remote learning, especially those who weren’t previously involved with distance learning initiatives. Was TOPP used to onboard instructors who previously only taught face to face? Did faculty feel like they had the resources and training they needed to make the switch more effectively than colleagues at other institutions? These aren’t questions I have answers to, but I venture to guess that faculty and instructional designers at Kapi’olani Community College did indeed have a leg up because of the prior investments the institution had already made in timely, meaningful, applicable, teacher-driven, problem-based, technology-rich, and sustainable PD.

References:

Bolliger, D. U., Inan, F. A., & Wasilik, O. (2014). Development and Validation of the Online Instructor Satisfaction Measure (OISM). Educational Technology Society, 17(2), 183–195.

Boston Consulting Group (2014). Teachers know best: Teachers’ Views on professional development. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. https://usprogram.gatesfoundation.org/news-and-insights/usp-resource-center/resources/teachers-know-best-teachers-views-on-professional-development

Cho, M. & Rathbun, G. (2013). Implementing teacher-centred online teacher professional development (oTPD) programme in higher education: a case study. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(2), 144-156. 10.1080/14703297.2012.760868

Davis, V. (2015, April 15). 8 Top Tips for Highly Effective PD. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/top-tips-highly-effective-pd-vicki-davis

Schaffhauser, Dian. (2019, October 30). Improving online teaching through training and support. Campus Technology. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2019/10/30/improving-online-teaching-through-training-and-support.aspx

Schildkamp, K., Wopereis, I., Kat-De Jong, M., Peet, A. & Hoetjes, I. (2020). Building blocks of instructor professional development for innovative ICT use during a pandemic. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), pp. 281-293. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2020-0034

April 29, 2021May 3, 2021

Resilient pedagogy: The professional development opportunity educators need now more than ever

Resilient pedagogy is an emerging instructional philosophy with extremely timely implications for this current moment in education and the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Though facets of resilient pedagogy have long been practiced by educators in the form of classroom differentiation, and though other frameworks like Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Transparency in Learning and Teaching (TILT) inform resilient pedagogy, Rebecca Quintana and her colleagues at the University of Michigan have attempted to define a more expansive type of differentiation by building upon these approaches to instructional design and extending beyond them, bringing to the forefront the need for instructors to be agile and intentional in all educational contexts, but especially in moments of crisis and change. More than just a fancy synonym for differentiation, resilient pedagogy can be defined as “…the ability to facilitate learning experiences that are designed to be adaptable to fluctuating conditions and disruptions” (Quintana & DeVaney, 2020, para. 8). Resilient teaching is an approach that “take[s] into account how a dynamic learning context may require new forms of interactions between teachers, students, content, and tools” (Quintana & DeVaney, 2020, para. 8), and those who practice resilient pedagogy have the capacity to rethink the design of learning experiences based on a nuanced understanding of context (Quintana & DeVaney, 2020). The key to resilient teaching is a focus on the interactions that facilitate learning, including all the ways that teachers and students need to communicate with one another and actively engage with the learning material (Hart-Davidson, 2020).

“Teachers often plan carefully for delivering content…but when it comes to planning interactions, we can easily take this very important component of learning for granted.”
(Hart-Davidson, 2020, para. 5)

In 2020, Rebecca Quintana and the University of Michigan released a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) via Coursera titled “Resilient Teaching Through Times of Crisis & Change.” The MOOC is available in a free, open access format and offers a flexible learning structure which makes it accessible to any educator wanting to engage with the topic. The registration process is simple, and as an asynchronous online learning experience, there are no time constraints on when a participant must register or when a participant must complete the course. Though the course is aimed at educators who may need to rethink how they teach in the immediate or near future due to the ever-changing circumstances of the pandemic, the course creators “…expect it will remain relevant to instructors who are faced with disruptions and change to their teaching for any number of reasons and must quickly adapt their course designs” (Quintana, 2020). Furthermore, though this MOOC course is especially relevant to the higher education environment, the principles of resilient pedagogy can absolutely be applied in any type of classroom by any type of educator.

Interested educators may engage with the course casually by reviewing videos (thoughtfully ‘chunked’ into appropriately consumable lengths) and reading materials in whatever order and pacing–and to whatever depth–feels pertinent to their needs. They can choose to purchase the full course and engage in all aspects of the learning experience, including submitting assignments and completing checks for understanding. In this format, participants can receive a course completion certificate at the end. This type of engagement may be especially helpful if participating in the course alongside colleagues in a more formal professional development venture. My personal engagement has been decidedly less formal.

The course content focuses on three key components of resilient pedagogy: designing for extensibility, designing for flexibility, and designing for redundancy. This three-principle framework helps flesh out the meaning and potential of resilient pedagogy while also serving as a practical guide to course design.

Designing for Extensibility means that a course is designed in such a way that it has a clearly defined purpose and essential, unaltered learning goals, and yet the basic essence of the course content can be extended with new capabilities and functionality as needed. This may involve the introduction of new tools or a change in format, moving fluidly from synchronous to asynchronous modalities, etc.
Designing for Flexibility means that a course is designed to respond to the individual needs of learners within a changing learning environment. In a nod to the UDL framework, designing for flexibility means that a course is structured to meet a variety of student needs and learning styles, even before knowing specific individuals in a given class. Flexibility will require a learner-centered approach with multiple means of engagement/expression and considerations for student needs which may arise within variable class sizes and modalities. A course designed for flexibility will also allow instructor expectations and assessments to flex in response to these needs.
Designing for Redundancy, simply put, means having contingency plans in place. Designing for redundancy asks instructors to analyze a course design for possible vulnerabilities. For example, how will students accustomed to synchronous virtual meetings be given the opportunity to engage in course activities if their internet access becomes unpredictable? In this design approach, instructors look for alternative ways of accomplishing goals with the hope of eliminating “single points of failure.” This is, of course, incredibly important when learning is situated in a time of crisis or emergency.

These three principles of resilient pedagogy do not stand alone. Rather, they inform one another and will naturally overlap in the instructional design process. The MOOC contains excellent examples and practical applications of extensibility, flexibility, and redundancy throughout, but Rebecca Quintana and her team aren’t the only academics talking about resilient pedagogy, and examples of resilient pedagogy implemented during the pandemic can be found outside the MOOC. For the reader who might be thinking about resilient pedagogy for the first time, here are a few examples of what resilient pedagogy may look like in practice:

Educators on a staggered schedule or a hybrid return-to-school plan may put together an in-person and virtual lesson plan that can be running at the same time on the same day with students engaging with the same content in two different modalities (Watson, 2020).
Instructors may create a spreadsheet for a course which helps track various contingencies and needed adjustments for various modalities: in person, hybrid or hyflex, and fully remote (Quintana, 2020).
Resilient pedagogy involves reducing complexity in any way possible. This can look like establishing a predictable weekly pattern for remote students, having fewer due dates, simplifying assignments, etc. (Tange, 2020). Resilient pedagogy in practice means educators can scale up or down as needed according to student needs, understanding that crisis situations almost always call for some sort of scaling down. It’s OK to pair a course down to its most essential elements.
Resilient pedagogy requires an emphasis on feedback and interactions vs. assignments and grading. Grading fewer assignments while also providing more opportunities for ongoing feedback increases the opportunity for interactions between instructors and students while also lowering the stakes for all parties (Watson, 2020). It also keeps educators from getting stuck trying to stick a “square-pegged” assignment or assessment into a “round hole” of a specific digital tool, modality, or crisis context, simply because this assignment has always been done as part of the course in the past.
As another way to emphasize the importance of interactions within a course, resilient pedagogy prioritizes small group interactions over and above large group instruction (Watson, 2020). This can take many forms in both synchronous and asynchronous, online and in-person formats.
Resilient pedagogy requires educators to consider the use of digital tools carefully within their course design. If, for example, they are using a particular tool on which the success of their students rests, instructors may dedicate time within their learning activities to help students learn how to use that technology and not make assumptions about their students’ digital literacy (Gardiner, 2020).

Though the application of resilient pedagogy may feel particularly prescient in this current moment of crisis, resilient teaching will benefit students and instructors in all circumstances in the long run, regardless of the circumstance. At the end of the day, resilient teaching forces instructors to examine student engagement carefully and intentionally and develop a student-centered mindset. It also helps instructors design a dynamic course once, so that they’re using their time and efforts efficiently and making their courses as resistant to disruption as possible (Gardiner, 2020). Resilience has been an oft-discussed trait that ‘successful’ students possess, but perhaps it’s time to shift that focus on to educators. Successful educators must be resilient themselves. It’s not only necessary for this moment, it’s the right thing to do for students in all contexts moving forward, and the “Resilient Teaching Through Times of Crisis & Change MOOC is a great place to start.

“If it seems like resilient pedagogy is in line with calls for us all to be making learning more inclusive and accessible, it certainly is.”
(Hart-Davidson, 2020, para. 17)

References:

Gardiner, E. (2020, June 25). Resilient Pedagogy for the Age of Disruption: A Conversation with Josh Eyler. Top Hat. https://tophat.com/blog/resilient-pedagogy-for-the-age-of-disruption-a-conversation-with-josh-eyler/

Hart-Davidson, B. (2020, April 6). Imagining a resilient pedagogy. Medium. https://cal.msu.edu/news/imagining-a-resilient-pedagogy/

Kaston Tange, A. (2020, June 8). Thinking about the humanities. https://andreakastontange.com/teaching/resilient-design-for-remote-teaching-and-learning/

Quintana, R. (2020). Resilient teaching through times of crisis and change [MOOC]. Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/learn/resilient-teaching-through-times-of-crisis

Quintana, R., & DeVaney, J. (2020, May 27). Laying the foundation for a resilient teaching community. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/learning-innovation/laying-foundation-resilient-teaching-community

Watson, A. (2020). Flexible, resilient pedagogy: How to plan activities that work for in-person, remote, AND hybrid instruction. Truth for Teachers. https://thecornerstoneforteachers.com/truth-for-teachers-podcast/resilient-pedagogy-hybrid-instruction-remote-learning-activities/

January 24, 2021January 25, 2021

Assessment in higher education during COVID-19 and beyond: Will it ever be the same?

Perhaps the word “unprecedented” has been overused in recent months, but it consistently seems to be the most fitting word to express the seismic shifts in all areas of life that have occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. As K-12 and higher education institutions worldwide have grappled with rapid pivots to online teaching and learning (and have continued in these blended and fully remote modalities for much longer than anticipated), academics are now taking a moment to reflect on the past year and its lasting implications for the world of education. After all, as business theory would posit, disruption leads to innovation.

As an educator interested in online teaching/learning in post-secondary education, I would specifically like to explore how the last year of remote learning has impacted assessment strategies in higher education. How have widespread shifts to online teaching/learning impacted college students’ abilities to demonstrate competency in varied and student-driven ways? Higher education is notoriously “old school,” and post-secondary classes are most frequently lecture-based, led by instructors who are slower to adapt to more progressive, student-driven pedagogies. And yet, as universities across the U.S. have made college and graduate school entrance exams like the SAT, ACT, and GRE optional for applicants in 2020 and 2021, a world beyond high stakes standardized testing can perhaps be imagined now more than ever.

Higher education instructors worldwide are already engaging in this issue and offering recommendations for ongoing change. Perhaps surprisingly, some of the first publications I encountered came from educators in the graduate medical school community in both Australia and Pakistan. This was particularly striking since the medical sciences require lab work and clinical assessments which are particularly challenging to address in remote situations, as well as the fact that the medical sciences have long required high stakes testing at many stages of a medical student’s training.

According to Torda (2020), many medical school instructors in Australia have moved to lower the stakes of traditional written or multiple choice exams delivered online during the pandemic. At the same time, a shift has been made to put more weight on multi-sourced feedback and student portfolios. Where clinicals are concerned, simulation platforms such as the OSPIA (Online Simulated Patient Interaction and Assessment) system have been leveraged to bridge the gap until in-person clinicals may safely resume. Another significant shift has been an emphasis on measuring a student’s ability to exhibit key professional skills, known in the medical community as “Entrustable Professional Activities,” over and above written examinations (Torda, 2020).. In other words, students are being assessed on their ability to apply their learning in professionally relevant contexts. Some of these skills include, but are not limited to, recommending and interpreting common diagnostic and screening tests, providing a (virtual) oral presentation of a clinical encounter, forming clinical questions and retrieving evidence to advance patient care, and collaborating with professional colleagues (Torda, 2020). It was noted that, taken as a whole, these measures go a long way toward easing test anxiety and motivations to cheat in an otherwise high stakes, demanding field of study (Torda, 2020).

Additional examples of altered assessment strategies in the medical community have been reported in Pakistan. Similar to Torda (2020), Khan and Jawaid (2020) posit that the pandemic has necessitated lowering the stakes of online-proctored, traditional exams. The authors advocate for the use of student portfolios and video evidence of professional tasks completed, as well as synchronous open book exams. The authors note that the aim of synchronous open book exams “…is to assess the ability of students to analyze and solve a problem, [and to] assess critical thinking and creativity. With open book exams taken in real time, the issues of cheating can be minimized.” (Khan & Jawaid, 2020, p. 109)

Changes in higher education assessment have also been reported in the United States. In June of 2020, Natasha Jankowski, in partnership with the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA), spearheaded a higher education survey meant to capture “a snapshot of assessment-related changes made during Spring 2020 in response to the sudden shift to remote instruction…” (Jankowski, 2020, p. 3). The survey included responses from faculty and staff at 624 different institutions, both public and private, with representation from all 50 states. The survey sought to record learning changes that higher education instructors were making, the impacts of those changes on assessment culture, and the role of student voice in the decisions (Jankowski, 2020). The survey results showed that 97% of respondents made learning, instructional, and assessment changes of some kind during Spring 2020. Changes included modifying assignments and assessments, allowing flexibility in assignment deadlines, shifting to a pass/fail grading model, and modifying assessment reporting deadlines. Though some respondents made changes that included accepting alternative assignments, this was a less often made change (Jankowski, 2020). The survey also showed “…that assessment-related changes were undertaken to address student needs” (p. 3). However, these changes may have had more to do with faculty/staff perception of student needs as opposed to action taken in direct response to student reports: “Information gathered from students was less likely to influence decisions on what to change, and students were less likely to be asked to identify their needs prior to decisions being made.” (p. 3) Consequently, it might be hard to define many of these changes in assessment as authentically “student-driven.”

Nevertheless, it seems that the pandemic has disrupted “business as usual” in higher education such that many of the changes reported above may in fact have lasting impact with increasing opportunity for student voice to take a front seat in decision-making. Dr. Funmi Amobi of Oregon State University’s Center for Teaching and Learning puts forth compelling arguments in favor of “reimagining” assessment in higher education in light of the lessons we’ve learned in the pandemic (Amobi, 2020). Amobi asserts that the radical move to remote instruction has “refocused attention on improving assessment practices to alleviate student stress and anxiety, emphasize learning, and redress inequities in student success.” (par. 2) The author goes further and provides seven practical strategies for reimagining assessment in higher education. Though these strategies can certainly be used effectively in remote learning environments, they are not only meant to solve problems related to online teaching and learning. The strategies presented by Amobi (2020) should be taken seriously by all higher education instructors wanting to diversify their approach to assessments and create more student-centered learning experiences:

Use short, weekly quizzes to assess students formatively, and consider making the quizzes cumulative so that they may contribute to a summative assessment score.
Ask for justification on multiple choice tests and grade the response instead of the answer.
Create opportunities for collaborative, group tests.
Have students construct exam questions themselves as a way of reviewing and exercising higher order thinking skills; then, include many of the student questions on the exam.
Allow for notes or a study card and have students submit the prepared materials for credit along with the actual exam.
Utilize practice tests.
Spend time reviewing exams to address misunderstandings and improve future performance; consider giving credit for thoughtfully corrected exams where learning is evident.

In each of the reviewed publications, certain recurring themes were readily apparent: 1) it may be high time for colleges and universities to rethink the value of high stakes testing 2) varied assessment strategies allow for a more effective presentation of student learning 3) assessment is part of the overall learning process and should not be divorced from student voice 4) varied assessment strategies reduce test anxiety and the motivation to cheat (the ladder being oft-cited as a obstacle in online assessment).

We must avoid the underlying assumption that more technology is needed in order to solve the problems that technology introduces. In other words, as the pandemic continues to require extended engagement in remote teaching, higher education instructors must not assume that the only way to assess online is to find a way to virtually proctor the same exam that would normally be given in a physical classroom (Kumar, 2020). Instead, educators at all levels may take this opportunity to make meaningful changes to their use of assessments, both now and into the future, thinking critically and creatively about how to best meet students where they’re at.

References:

Amobi, F. (2020, November 12). Reimagining assessment in the pandemic era: Comprehensive assessment of student learning. OSU Center for Teaching and Learning. https://blogs.oregonstate.edu/osuteaching/2020/11/12/reimagining-assessment-in-the-pandemic-era-comprehensive-assessment-of-student-learning/

Jankowski, N. A. (2020). Assessment during a crisis: Responding to a global pandemic. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. https://public.uhcl.edu/education/centers-initiatives/planning-assessment/documents/niloa-covid-assessment-report.pdf

Khan, R. A. & Jawaid, M. (2020). Technology Enhanced Assessment (TEA) in COVID 19 Pandemic. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 36, 108-110. 10.12669/pjms.36.COVID19-S4.2795

Kumar, R. (2020). Assessing higher education in the COVID-19 era. Brock Education Journal 29(2), 37-4. https://journals.library.brocku.ca/brocked

Torda, A, (2020). How COVID‐19 has pushed us into a medical education revolution. Internal Medicine Journal 15(9), (1150-1153). https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.14882

November 5, 2020

Student Flourishing in the Virtual Classroom

There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has greatly accelerated the rate at which schools and universities of all shapes and sizes have had to move to online teaching and learning modalities, even if only as a short-term conduit for allowing formal education to continue in these unprecedented times. There is also no doubt that this emergency shift to online teaching has left many concerned about overall student well-being including screen fatigue, issues of access and equity, teacher readiness, social-emotional support in a digital environment, and the overall efficacy of the educational endeavor for students of all ages in digital mediums. Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? Or might there already be some twinkle lights strung up along the tunnel walls guiding the way?

In this post I’d like to explore some of the evidence that already exists in support of student flourishing—particularly at the postsecondary level—in hybrid or fully online programs, as well as what best practices can be used to support student well-being in all online teaching/learning endeavors, during COVID-19 and beyond. Thankfully, the pandemic didn’t bring about the dawn of online pedagogy in higher education, and postsecondary educators have places to turn in order to think critically (and perhaps hopefully) about student success and well-being, be it academic or personal, in the digital classroom.

Evidence of Flourishing:

Few would argue that an in-person classroom experience can be identically replicated online. In fact, those who attempt to do so have probably done so with disappointing results. But perhaps educators shouldn’t necessarily be trying to replicate a physical classroom experience in an online environment. Rather, they should think of the virtual classroom as a new endeavor; it is a new context with new possibilities to explore, and online pedagogy may bring new teaching/learning benefits to the table that a physical classroom lacks.

Indeed, there’s evidence to suggest that a hybrid of in-person and online teaching may be the very best approach to postsecondary learning—with or without a pandemic—as it capitalizes on the “best of both worlds.” In an extensive, multi-year case study conducted at the University of Central Florida in 2004, research showed that student success in blended programs (success being defined as achieving a C- grade or higher) actually exceeded the success rates of students in either fully online or fully face-to-face programs (Dziuban et al, 2004). Furthermore, in a meta-analysis of studies on online and hybrid learning conducted by the U.S. Department of Education in 2010, it was reported that students in online and hybrid learning programs had more gain in their learning when compared to face-to-face modalities, and students in hybrid learning courses had the largest gains in their learning among their peers in all delivery formats (Means et al., 2010). In yet another study (Chen & Chiou, 2014) measuring the learning outcomes, satisfaction, sense of community and learning styles of 140 second-year university students in Taiwan, results showed that students in a hybrid course had significantly higher scores and overall course satisfaction than did students participating in face-to-face courses. The results also indicated that students in hybrid learning classrooms actually felt a stronger sense of community than did students in a traditional classroom setting (Chen & Chiou, 2014).

While one must make many allowances for the various emergency situations brought on by the pandemic (and that there is a distinction between emergency remote instruction and true online teaching/learning), there is plenty of evidence to suggest that well-implemented online teaching/learning can truly enhance student learning beyond what might otherwise be accomplished in a fully face-to-face environment.

Some Best Practices in Online Instruction:

Technology-mediated education is making it possible for students to participate in programs, access content, and connect in ways they were previously unable to. Rather than viewing the Internet as a necessary evil for distance learning that ultimately begets isolated student learning experiences, digital education should, first and foremost, be connective and communal. This means a professor accustomed to lecture-based learning in a physical classroom will need to consider a new approach in order to prioritize student voice in the learning process. In an online context, this means there should be dynamic opportunities for students to engage in debate, reflection, collaboration, and peer review (Weigel, 2002).

If educators are going to seriously account for the rich background experiences, varied motivations, and personal agency of their postsecondary learners, they must also take into account the larger “lifewide” learning that takes place within the lives of their students (Peters & Romero, 2019). Student learning at any age is both formal and informal, and what takes place in a formal classroom environment—digital or otherwise—is influenced by informal learning and daily living that takes place outside of it. If deep learning takes place, a student’s world and daily life should be altered by the creation of new schemas and the learning that has taken place in a formal classroom environment. In a multicase and multisite study conducted by Mitchell Peters and Marc Romero in 2019, 13 different fully-online graduate programs in Spain, the US, and the UK were examined in order to analyze learning processes across a continuum of contexts (i.e., to understand to what extent learning was used by the student outside of the formal classroom environment). In this study, certain common pedagogical strategies arose across programs in support of successful student learning and engagement including:

Developing core skills in information literacy and knowledge management,
Community-building through discussion and debate forums,
Making connections between academic study and professional practice,
Connecting micro-scale tasks (like weekly posts) with macro-scale tasks (like a final project), and
Applying professional interests and experiences into course assignments and interest-driven research.

(Peters & Romero, 2019).

In many regards, each of these pedagogical strategies is ultimately teaching students to “learn how to learn” so that the skills they cultivate in the classroom can be applied over and over again elsewhere. This means that, where digital learning is concerned, the most important learning activities aren’t actually taking place in a large, synchronous Zoom meeting or broadcasted lecture series.

On a practical level, educators can also give attention to some of these simple “tricks of the trade” that have been proven to enhance student learning experiences in a virtual classroom:

Communicate often with students to promote a feeling of connectedness
Create ample space for student voice
Take care that a course set-up in a learning management system is intuitively laid out, action oriented, and adaptable to student needs
Give timely feedback and highlight student strengths
Create opportunities for synchronous activities when possible
Be explicit about expected course outcomes

(Vlachopoulos & Makri, 2019)

At the end of the day, learning and schooling no longer have the same direct relationship they had for most of the 20^th century; devices and digital libraries allow anyone to have access to information at any time (Wilen, 2009). Schools, teachers, and printed books no longer hold the “keys to the kingdom” as sources of information. Online education, then, will not function effectively as a large-scale effort to teach students information through a standardized curriculum. Rather, education must be a highly relevant venture that enables individual students to do something with the virtually endless information and resources they have access to (Wilen, 2009).

Student Agency & Connection Lead to Student Wellbeing:

When considering how to best support student wellbeing in an online learning environment (at every level), it’s important to remember that the student is not a passive entity. Indeed, the extent to which students are able to exercise agency in their learning can have a significant impact on their academic success, their attitude towards the learning experience, and their social-emotional wellbeing. In this case, agency can be interpreted as a student’s ability to exercise choice and be meaningfully present and interactive in the online learning environment.

One of the significant benefits of learning management systems and digital classrooms is the existence of a platform through which resources and learning materials can be shared and posted for any length of time. Thus, students have the ability to review online course materials at their own pace and engage at a rate that makes sense for their individual needs (Park, 2010). Allowing students the time and space to persist in completing online learning activities can have significant impact on a students’ success in an academic course (Park, 2019).

Additionally, game-based learning activities, opportunities for collaboration in group projects, participation in threaded discussions, and dedicated spaces for students to freely express their views all assist students in taking ownership of their learning and pursuing their learning interests as those interests materialize in—and overlap with—the course content (Vlachopoulos & Makri, 2019). These are the activities that directly impact student engagement in a course, as well as the likelihood that a student will have a positive attitude towards the learning experience.

For many traditionally-aged students navigating undergraduate studies during the pandemic, the decreased ability to connect socially with peers, faculty, and support staff has had a direct, negative impact on their academic motivation and overall sense of wellbeing (Burke, 2020). Thus, creating time and space in the digital learning environment for social interaction, open communication, and for students to gain a sense of identity within the virtual classroom is perhaps more important than ever.

Finally, it’s very much worth mentioning that the extent to which all spheres of life have been impacted by COVID-19—not just the classroom—is unprecedented. Helping students think of remote learning as an opportunity for growth, one that will have challenges and limitations as well as potential and new kinds of goals that can be achieved, can help them maintain a sense of purpose and direction amidst the chaos (Burke, 2020). Growth mindset has already been proven to positively impact student learning at all levels—what better time to remind students (and educators) of the opportunities for growth in the present.

References:

Burke, L. (2020, October 27). Moving into the long term. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2020/10/27/long-term-online-learning-pandemic-may-impact-students-well

Chen, B. & Chiou, H. (2014). Learning style, sense of community, and learning effectiveness in hybrid learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 485-496. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10494820.2012.680971

Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Moskal, P., Sorg, S., & Truman, B. (2004). Three ALN modalities: an institutional perspective. In J. R. Bourne, & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream (127–148). Sloan Consortium.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Park, E., Martin, F., & Lambert, R. (2019). Examining predictive factors for student success in a hybrid learning course. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education 20(2), 11-27.

Peters, M. & Romero, M. (2019) Lifelong learning ecologies in online higher education: Students’ engagement in the continuum between formal and informal learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(4), 1729.

Vlachopoulos, D., & Makri, A. (2019). Online communication and interaction in distance higher education: A framework study of good practice. International Review of Education, 65,605–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-019-09792-3

Weigel, Van B. (2002) Deep learning for a digital age. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wilen, T. (2009). .Edu: Technology and learning environments in higher education. Peter Lang Publishing.

September 10, 2020September 10, 2020

A Few Best Practices for Online Learning & Adoption in Higher Education

Though the digital age may not actually be changing a student’s capacity to learn, it’s certainly changing how students access content and participate in learning environments. Digital technology thoroughly transforms the way in which we create, manage, transfer, and apply knowledge (Duderstadt, Atkins, & Van Houweling, 2002). Unsurprisingly, it’s also changing how educators teach, particularly with technology-mediated instruction in higher education. The demand for online instruction is on the rise. In the United States alone, the number of higher education students enrolled in online courses increased by 21% between fall 2008 and fall 2009, and the rate of increase has only grown in recent years, both nationally and globally (Bolliger & Inan, 2012). Of course, the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 has also necessitated a radical—though in some cases temporary—shift to online learning modalities at all educational levels across the globe.

Fortunately, there’s evidence to support that digital education incorporation can enhance pedagogy and improve overall student performance at the college level. An extensive, multi-year case study conducted at the University of Central Florida showed that student success in blended programs (success being defined as achieving a C- grade or higher) actually exceeded the success rates of students in either fully online or fully face-to-face programs (Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Moskal, P., Sorg, S., & Truman, B., 2004).

In the switch to online teaching and learning, a clear challenge is presented: teaching faculty are faced with a need to move their programs and classes into online/flexible learning formats, regardless of their discipline or their expertise/ability to do so. It is not uncommon for teachers, no matter the level at which they teach, to be asked to implement something new in their classroom without sufficient support, professional development, or resources to make the implementation successful. The need for appropriate training becomes that much more pressing when educators are asked to engage with an entirely different instruction medium from that which they are accustomed to. In the case of blended or online learning, many faculty will need to develop completely new technological and/or pedagogical skills. While a number of scholars have conducted investigations into the effectiveness of blended or online learning, very few have provided guidance for adoption at the institutional level (Porter, Graham, Spring, & Welch, 2014).

Far from being a comprehensive guide, this post seeks to explore a few major themes and best practices for online learning in postsecondary education which may prove helpful for teaching professionals and higher education institutions heading into an otherwise unfamiliar world of digital education.

Create a Learning Community:

Digital education is made possible by computers and the internet. In the age of the Internet, the computer is ultimately used most to provide connection, whether that be through social media, e-commerce, gaming, publications, or education (Weigel, 2002). Technology-mediated education is making it possible for students to participate in programs, access content, and connect in ways they were previously unable to. Rather than viewing the Internet as a necessary evil for distance learning that ultimately begets isolated student learning experiences, digital education should, first and foremost, be connective and communal. This means a professor accustomed to lecture-based learning in a physical classroom may need to consider a new approach in order to make space for student voice in the learning process. In an online context, this means there should be dynamic opportunities for students to engage in debate, reflection, collaboration, and peer review (Weigel, 2002).

Beyond Information Transfer:

Learning and schooling no longer have the same direct relationship they had for most of the 20^th century; devices and digital libraries allow anyone to have access to information at any time (Wilen, 2009). Schools, teachers, and even books no longer hold the “keys to the kingdom” as sources of information. Higher education, then, will not function effectively as a large-scale effort to teach students information through a standardized curriculum. Rather, education must be a highly relevant venture that enables individual students to do something with the virtually endless information and resources they have access to (Wilen, 2009).

Relevance:

If university instructors are going to seriously account for the rich background experiences, varied motivations, and personal agency of their postsecondary students, they must also take into account the larger “lifewide” learning that takes place within the life of most college students (Peters & Romero, 2019). Student learning at any age is both formal and informal, and what takes place in a formal classroom environment is influenced by informal learning and daily living that takes place outside of it. Likewise, if deep learning takes place, a student’s world and daily life should be altered by the creation of new schemas and the learning that has taken place in a formal classroom environment.

In a multicase and multisite study conducted by Mitchell Peters and Marc Romero in 2019, 13 different fully-online graduate programs in Spain, the US, and the UK were examined in order to analyze learning processes across a continuum of contexts (i.e., to understand to what extent learning was used by the student outside of the formal classroom environment). Certain common pedagogical strategies arose across programs in support of successful student learning and engagement including: developing core skills in information literacy and knowledge management, community-building through discussion and debate forums, making connections between academic study and professional practice, connecting micro-scale tasks (like weekly posts) with macro-scale tasks (like a final project), and applying professional interests and experiences into course assignments and interest-driven research (Peters & Romero, 2019). In many regards, each of these pedagogical strategies is ultimately teaching students to “learn how to learn” so that the skills they cultivate in the classroom can be applied over and over again elsewhere.

Professional Development:

Still there remains the question of implementation. In order for the mature adoption of digital education to take place, faculty need to be given time and training to help them develop new technological and pedagogical skills. If an institution fails to provide sufficient opportunities for professional development, many faculty members will likely fail to fully embrace the shift to an online format, and will instead replicate their conventional teaching methods in a manner that isn’t compatible with effective online instruction (Porter, et al., 2014). If higher education institutions are committed to delivering high quality instruction in all contexts, it will be important for administrators to retain qualified instructors who are motivated to teach online and who are satisfied with teaching online (Bolliger, Inan, & Wasilik, 2014).

In a 2012-2013 survey of 11 higher education institutions reporting on their implementation of blended learning programs, Wendy Porter et al found that every university surveyed provided at least some measure of professional development to support faculty in the transition. Each university had their own customized approach, but the fact that developmental support was prioritized in some regard remained consistent across all of the institutions in the survey. Strategies used for professional development in digital learning included presentations, seminars, webinars, live workshops, orientations, boot camps, instructor certification programs for online teaching, course redesign classes, and self-paced training programs (Porter et al., 2014).

Digital Literacy:

Digital literacy among higher education faculty can’t be taken for granted. A recent Action Research study aimed at exploring the digital capacity and capability of higher education practitioners found that, though the self-reported digital capability of an individual may be relatively high, it did not necessarily relate to the quality of their technical skills in relation to their jobs (Podorova et al., 2019). Survey results from the study also showed that the majority of practitioners (41 higher education professors in Australia) were self-taught in the skills they did possess, receiving very little formal training or support from their employer, even with technology devices and tools directly pertaining to teaching and assessment (Podorova et al., 2019). Though this data relates to a specific case study, it is not difficult to imagine that higher education faculty in institutions all over the world might report similar experiences. If faculty aren’t given sufficient technological support and training, they will be less satisfied in their work and, ultimately, the student experience will suffer (Bolliger, et al., 2014).

Institutional Adoption:

In addition to providing sufficient technological or pedagogical resources, it is important for university administrators to communicate the purpose for online course adaptation. In a later study conducted by Wendy Porter and Charles Graham in 2016, research indicated that higher education faculty more readily pursued effective adoption strategies when they were in alignment with the institution’s administrators and the stated purpose for doing so (Porter & Graham, 2016). If faculty members are, in essence, adult learners being asked to acquire new skills, it is essential to take their own motivations for learning into account. Additionally, sharing data and course feedback internally from early-adopters to online instruction can go a long way in helping reticent faculty feel ready to approach online learning (Porter & Graham, 2016). Institutional support is cited frequently in literature pertaining to faculty satisfaction in higher education. In the domain of online learning, institutional support looks like: providing adequate release time to prepare for online courses, fair compensation, and giving faculty sufficient tools, training, and reliable technical support (Bolliger et al., 2014).

One effective approach to professional development for online learning places professors in the seat of the student. At Hawaii’s Kapi’olani Community College on the island of Oahu, Instructional Designer Helen Torigoe was charged with training faculty in the process of converting courses for online delivery. In response, Torigoe created the Teaching Online Prep Program (TOPP) (Schauffhauser, 2019). In TOPP, faculty participate in an online course model as a student, using their own first-hand experience to inform their course creation. As they participate in the course, faculty are able to use the technology that they will be in charge of as an instructor (programs like Zoom, Padlet, Flipgrid, Adobe Spark, Loom, and Screencast-O-Matic), gaining comfort and ease with the tools and increasing their overall digital literacy. Faculty also get a comprehensive sense for the student experience while concurrently creating an actual course template and receiving guidance and support from the TOPP course coordinator. Such training is mandatory for anybody teaching online for the first time at Kapi’olani Community College. A “Recharge” workshop has also been created to help faculty engage in continued learning for best practice in digital education, ensuring that faculty do not become static in their teaching methods and are consistently exposed to new tools and strategies for digital education (Schauffhauser, 2019). Institutions that participate in online education need to provide adequate training in both pedagogical issues and technology-related skills for their faculty, not only when developing and teaching online courses for the first time, but as an ongoing priority in faculty professional development (Bolliger et al., 2014).

Summary:

The number of graduate courses and programs that must be offered in an online format is increasing in many higher education environments. Effective online educators will acknowledge the unique needs of their postsecondary learners: that their students need to have their background experiences and context utilized in the learning process, that their learning needs to be relevant to their life and work, and that their learning needs to be providing them with actionable skills and learning strategies that ultimately change how they interact with their world. Effective online learning will also provide ample space for student connection and active participation. This means there should be dynamic opportunities for students to engage in debate, reflection, collaboration, and peer review (Weigel, 2002). Additionally, online learning ought to be a highly relevant venture that enables individual students to do something with the virtually endless information and resources they have access to (Wilen, 2009). Yet in order for the mature adoption of digital education to take place, faculty need to be given time and training to help them develop new technological and pedagogical skills. This training needs to happen with initial adoption and as an ongoing venture. One example of highly effective faculty professional development can be found in Instructional Designer Helen Torigoe’s Teaching Online Prep Program (TOPP) (Schaffhauser, 2019). In this program the instructors become the students as they familiarize themselves with a new learning system, create a customized course template, and get feedback and support from knowledgeable online educators. In short, well-equipped, well-trained, and well-supported graduate faculty are fertile ground for effective online education.

References

Bolliger, D. U., Inan, F. A., & Wasilik, O. (2014). Development and validation of the online instructor satisfaction measure (OISM). Educational Technology Society, 17(2), 183–195.

Duderstadt, J., Atkins, D., Van Houweling, D. (2002). Higher education in the digital age: Technology issues and strategies for American colleges and universities. Praeger Publishers.

Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Moskal, P., Sorg, S., & Truman, B. (2004). Three ALN modalities: An institutional perspective. In J. R. Bourne, & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Into the mainstream (127–148). Sloan Consortium.

Podorova, A., Irvine, S., Kilmister, M., Hewison, R., Janssen, A., Speziali, A., …McAlinden, M. (2019). An important, but neglected aspect of learning assistance in higher education: Exploring the digital learning capacity of academic language and learning practitioners. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 16(4), 1-21.

Porter, W., & Graham, C. (2016). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 748-762.

Porter, W., Graham, C., Spring, K., & Welch, K. (2014). Blended learning in higher education: Institutional adoption and implementation. Computers & Education, 75, 185-195.

Schaffhauser, D. (2019). Improving online teaching through training and support. Campus Technology. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2019/10/30/improving-online-teaching-through-training-and-support.aspx

Weigel, V.B. (2002) Deep learning for a digital age. Jossey-Bass.

Wilen, T. (2009). .Edu: Technology and learning environments in higher education. Peter Lang Publishing.