Seeta Nyary, OISE/UT for ALN 2005

1. A Case Study: Teacher Training for the Design and Development of Online Asynchronous Collaborative Courses2003/4 DRAFT (To be Modified for Final) Seeta Nyary, OISE/UTfor ALN 2005

2. Agenda Objectives Background Introduction The Approach The Process Examples Successes Challenges

3. Presentation Objectives • A better understanding of the training process, curriculum and the variables involved during the planning and delivery of this course. • An overview of how constructivist online theory and practice were integrated in this professional development approach • Successes and Challenges

4. Background • Goal: Creation of a Distance Education Program (2001/2-2005), within an existing institutional context. • Aim to have one online course available in each subject area (over 100 areas) • This professional development program was jointly initiated by the department of Continuing Education and the Academic Computing Group with the purpose of establishing a distance education component for teacher Additional Qualification (AQ) courses at OISE/UT (as distinct from the Graduate or Pre-service education programs).

5. Background • The program was developed from the ground up over the last 3-4 years. • This study represents the third rendition of the process. • 8 month program (from Oct-May/June) with a delivery aim for the subsequent Summer and Fall sessions. • Courses have approx. doubled each year within the last three years. • Approx 20-24 students/course

6. Background

7. Background • By the third year and through experience: the training addressed the transfer of curriculum and instructional design to an online collaborative environment, rather than content development. • All educators • Familiar with course content, curriculum and Ministry expectations • Focus became the pedagogy

8. Background • My role as a facilitator in presenting and working with them on established principles around online learning, spawning ideas for their own development in this medium and guiding them through their questions within an online community. • Providing a social community (within WebKF) would foster a shared peer network and discourage the feeling of isolation during their curriculum deliberation process. • Many of these outcomes were successfully realized, in some cases with deliberation among key agents during development.

9. Introduction • OISE/UT has a Continuing Education Department with Ministry-regulated “Additional Qualifications” (AQ) Courses for teachers. • A case study of an in-service professional development program for course developers/instructors new to online teaching and learning. • All developers/instructors are educators hired by the department for the development of the course, including this training. Instructional contracts are separate. • Transfer of an existing f2f curriculum. • Participants – educators/subject matter experts and have taught the same course f2f. • Some instructors in the course had online experience in other courseware applications, but designing a collaborative distance course was new to all.

10. Introduction • LMS: Asynchronous Learning Environment • WebKF, Web Knowledge Forum • A program developed within OISE/UT, based on Knowledge Building Principles (Bereiter & Scardamalia). • Developers were hired to instruct (where possible) as well as develop in order to maintain consistency and implement post-course improvements • Training therefore addressed instructional and developmental aspects of online instruction. • Other instructors were hired to teach duplicate session of the same course and only attended the final instructor training component of this program.

11. The Approach • Training was a nested-approach which primarily occurred online, within the same environment the course was to be developed • Modeling the Student Experience - designing a course curriculum where they themselves would have the experience of participating in an online course • From a practical stance, we would provide a common place for correspondence and resources. • The units, activities, discussions, evaluations and projects, as well as the teacher/student roles as they relate to online teaching and learning, would comprise the curriculum.

12. The Approach • 3-Pronged Review Process: • College of Teachers/Ministry Expectations (Principals selected as Curriculum experts) • Continuing Education Dept. OISE/UT (Quality Assurance, Standards of Practice and Professional Expectations) • Academic Computing at OISE/UT – lead in the implementation and curriculum development for Distance Ed and Online Teaching/Learning

13. The Approach • Course Objectives: • Portability of developed course for other/future instructors • standardization of units, resources, student and instructor notes, yet allowing flexibility for instructor variances. • Ensured all Ministry expectations were met • Ensured professional course quality and rigor • Engage the developers with online teaching and learning principles in the same online environment as the course will be taught

14. The Approach • Course Objectives: • Teaching and learning strategies for online collaborative asynchronous learning comprise the course content • Developers are asked to participate in various activities over an eight-month period, in which each unit leads toward the final culminating task • The final online course within their specific content area • This course is primarily taught online • Since all the hires were within the local vicinity, three to four F2F sessions were provided on location (blended approach). • The course has, however, been designed with the goal of providing the entire curriculum online at a future date.

15. The Process • Entire process approx 8 months • commencing in October, after the initial teacher rush is over • Distinct online activity periods (about 3 weeks each) • Distinct Course development/Assignment periods

16. The Process - Core Units: • Pre-course Requirements – picking candidates (Recommended by content-expert Principals) • Introduction to Online Teaching and Learning (2 weeks) • Orientation letter is sent to candidates notifying their participation in the training • The orientation letter emulates a student orientation letter with login information and an orientation activity. • What is online About? (Blended) • One evening session (presentation) • course overview, expectations • signing of the contract

17. Face-to-Face Learner Content Teacher Online Learner Software Communication Technology Content Teacher • 147 Practical Tips for Teaching Online Groups, 2000

18. Roles of Instructors and Students To see this more simply… a continuum: Student - centered Student - centered Instructor - directed Student-directed Instructor as Facilitator Guide, Coach Constructivist Traditional Cooperative Collaborative Negotiate Socratic Student Engaged or Active Participant Student as Information Recipient Instructor as Expert Participant

19. You don’t want to feel like this?

20. We can’t all be geeks

21. But, don’t hide behind Technology

22. Because, you don’t have to... Learn the Essentials!

23. It can be fun… anywhere it just has to be flexible anytime

24. The Process - Core Units: • Going from F2F to Online • Online Discussion Period (3 weeks) • Content collection for their developed course • Assignments and feedback (2 months) • Exemplar analysis, Course chunking • Exploring Learning Strategies (Coop peer activity) – 2 weeks • Models ideas for activities

25. The Process - Core Units: • Designing the Course • Virtual Library and Expert Guest Lecture (f2f and Online component) (1 month) • Detail Course Development (various stages) (2.5 months) • template refinements, peer and facilitator feedback • Participant self-assessment and instructor feedback • Other small modeled online activity periods

26. The Process - Core Units: • Bringing it all together (refinement an approval of the culminating activity) (2 months) • Instructional Workshop (f2f – 1 day workshop) (2 weeks prior to teaching) • Mentoring and support

27. The Process – Learning Theory • Learning is an active process • Learning should be meaningful • Learning is situational • Learning is based on past experiences • Learning is a cumulative process • Learning is a social activity General Examples and Ref’s to be supplied

28. The Process – Progressive Discourse Bereiter sites six characteristics of progressive discourse (Bereiter, 2002). Participants are encouraged to practice and understand these characteristics: • Focus on conceptual artifacts. • Improvability as a positive attribute of conceptual artifacts. • Common understanding given priority over agreement. • Commitment to expand the factual base. • Selective criticism based on knowledge advancement goals. • Nonsectarianism.

29. Examples Theory with Practice • Example 1 • Example 2 • Example 3 • Example 4 • Example 5 • Tool 1 • Tool 2 • Tool 3

30. Successes • Mostly online with small blended meetings • avoids logistical problems - professional release time from school boards, travel over various boroughs • provides time flexibility in learning with their job, other night time school commitments, family and other • acquire student perspectives in learning online (situated and authentic learning model) • model fosters the movement to a fully online teacher training program

31. Successes • Curriculum • Allowed for the demonstration and sharing of many activities • Relating to known past experiences and f2f strategies (teaching the course) aided in the transfer of the pedagogy • Templates were useful for standardizing the final product • Previous exemplars are so important for ideas in various content areas • Capability to develop more courses at once, as planned timelines would allow administrators and editors to schedule time appropriately

32. Successes • Ability to allocate time in this way means time is more efficiently managed by all parties • Community and peer mentoring - each developer was more motivated to stay on task, and were therefore more likely to strive for excellence

33. Challenges • Time: Participants (who are mostly full-time teachers) • Have problem participating in online activities – compete with other demands • Inconsistencies in participation among participants • More incentives to complete the training properly

34. Challenges • Getting curriculum experts (principles) and other departmental heads to participate online • allowing for more timely approvals • gaining more knowledge about online pedagogy and curriculum decisions • gaining more knowledge to make more informed decisions sooner about standardization and flexibility • One instructor challenge • Planning to much content • Others?

35. Thank You! • Questions, Your Experiences? • References (website): • uploaded final presentation • paper with references • guest login to WebKf Course