Exploring MOOCs with edX

edX MOOC course: https://www.edx.org/course/edx/edxdemo101/edx-demo/1038

This is a demonstration of the edX courses provided by Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University and even from the demonstration you can tell that they have done their homework. The course is very user-friendly because it is designed linearly so that "students move in the same path through the concepts, topics, and modules, and complete the same assessments and tests" (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012, p. 170). There are navigational menus at the top that take learners through the topics of the modules and there is a menu on the side that defines the modules. In fact,  the modules are divided by the weeks so that students will complete one module per week (Simonson et al., 2012, p. 182). Because of the menus on the top and side of the course, the navigation is very easy and even for learner who are new to the system (like me) and it's very easy to follow.

However, perhaps the most interesting feature of this course is the way the information is presented. It is clearly multifaceted and "the instructors [have begun] to think visually" (Simonson et al., 2012, p. 159) because there is the use of videos (and multiple formats of videos such as a lecture, demonstration, and discussion), interactive reference tables (i.e., there is a table that you are able to scroll over and click on different parts to get more information), zooming diagrams and course readings. Having a variety of resources enriches the environment and makes it suitable for all learning styles and preferences. It was enjoyable to explore each learning object because they were diverse and engaging.

In fact, Simonson et al. (2012) remind us that "it is important to remember that no matter which technological formats are used in distance education, the trend is to reduce the 'amount' of information delivered and to increase the 'interactive value' of the learning experience" (p. 157). I think edX has done well with this because there are a number of ways to be interactive in their courses. There are discussion forums, wikis, quizzes, Google hangouts, and students are encouraged to connect with one another by using Twitter, Facebook or other social networks. edX states, "It's a proven face that if you engage with others while taking a course, you're more likely to succeed" (edX: DemoX edX Demonstration Course, n.d.). Similarly, Benson and Samarawickrema (2009) wrote, "[T]he strongest factor that affected students’ transactional distance and engagement with learning was the transactional distance between student and students, followed by transactional distance between student and teacher" (Benson & Samarawickrema, 2009, p. 9). Therefore, if students are engaged with each other and the content, learning becomes more meaningful.

Finally, even within the demonstration course I can see my progress/grades by clicking on the "progress" tab at the top of the course. There's a graph of my progress so that I can assess how I am doing and see what I still have to do, and there is more detail about each module as I scroll down the page to view my progress. It's a nice feature that will help keep learners of edX course accountable.

It's clear to me that edX has "[taken] the time to plan and organize the learning experience when engaged in teaching at a distance" (Simonson et al., 2012, p. 188). There is diversity in the presentation of the content and the interactivity so that all kinds of learners would enjoy the courses and easily be able to monitor their progress. Andersen (2009) reminds us "that high levels of interconnectedness between learners [leads] to higher levels of knowledge construction" (p. 252). edX seems to have found a number of techniques in which to engage the learner in meaningful and diverse ways, so I believe these courses will maximize the learning opportunities of any student.

References

Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (1), 249–257. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_1/19.pdf

Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009). Addressing the context of e-learning: using transactional distance theory to inform design. Distance Education, 30(1), 5-21.

edX: DemoX edX Demonstration Course. (n.d.). In edX. Retrieved from https://courses.edx.org/courses/edX/DemoX/Demo_Course/courseware/d8a6192ade314473a78242dfeedfbf5b/edx_introduction/

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Shocking Elements of Learning Theories and Instruction

Shock #1: Learning styles don't exist.

     I dare you to walk into a teacher in-service and say, “Learning styles don’t exist.” Heads will turn, jaws will drop, and arguments will ensue. Nevertheless, I feel like I could now walk into that in-service and convince educators that teaching to students’ learning styles isn’t as important as teaching the content in the appropriate way. As long as the content is approached in the proper manner, learners will be able to store the information and recall it when necessary and that's what educators want (Willingham, 2008). We are all able to learn in a variety of ways, so teachers do not need to adjust to learners' learning styles. Instead, teachers need to think about what they want their students to understand. For example, if want my students to know where Shakespeare was born and to be able to identify that on a map, I should present that information visually. Verbally explaining where Stratford-upon-Avon is located will likely not work as well as showing the students on a map. Therefore, even if a learner is considered to be an auditory learner, he/she will best learn to locate Stratford-upon-Avon by seeing it on a map. If you would like to know more about this, please see Daniel Willingham's YouTube video. He clearly explains his views and it will make teachers who have felt guilty about "catering" to specific learning styles feel much better about their practice.

Shock #2: Learning is easy.

     I’ve come to the shocking realization that I don’t really have to try to learn; it kind of just happens since I am connected to so many networks via my place of employment (Colegio Americano deTorreon or CAT), the internet, and my social networks. CAT has in-services and workshops on a semi-regular basis, so I am able to share ideas with colleagues to continue my growth as an educator. The internet is chock-full of resources, too, so without even trying, I follow respected education experts' blogs with Google Reader and I have connected with them on Twitter. It's so easy! And it's a connectivist concept--I'm using my networks of people, technology, social structures, systems, etc. to "share ideas with others, thereby 'cross-pollinating' the learning environment" (Davis, Edmunds, & Kelly-Bateman, 2008). Once you're connected, learning becomes so easy because so much of it just comes to you instead of you going to it.

Shock #3: Learning theories provide the base for good instruction.

     Well, perhaps that statement isn't shocking, except it is for me. Previously learning theories were something I had to learn, but I was more interested in learning styles and how I presented the content to accommodate those learning styles. However, I now understand "learning theories are a source of verified instructional strategies, tactics, and techniques" that "provide the foundation for intelligent and reasoned strategy selection" (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 51). Knowing learning theories will guide one to use the appropriate learning style, whether it be visual, auditory, kinesthetic, naturalist, interpersonal, etc. Likewise, technology may support the learning style and technology (especially with younger learners) increases motivation because learners are using something they with which they are comfortable and something they like.

     Honestly, the most shocking element this course has revealed to me is that learning theories are relevant and they do matter. Before this course, I would have helped prove Ertmer and Newby's (1993) statement: "It appears that the real benefits of theoretical knowledge are, at present, not being realized" (p. 52). I believe I had one undergraduate course that focused on learning theories, so I assumed they were simply these abstract concepts that someone dreamed up that were important to someone somewhere. However, I am now that someone and hope I am able to be a better teacher and instructional designer now that I know how valuable theory can be. Learning theories shall be the guides that lead me intentionally and thoughtfully into the 21st century of education and they will be the light that continues to point me in the right direction.

References

Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4),50-71.
Willingham, D. (2008, August 21). Learning Styles Don't Exist. In YouTube. Retrieved December 21, 2012, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIv9rz2NTUk