Aleta May Initial Blog Post Week 6
In what way is the process my group is using facilitating the design of our course?
One of the questions I have had as we design this course regards copyright laws; and more specifically, copyright laws for distance learning classes. The Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act (TEACH), passed in 2002, outlines three fair use measures that address the needs unique to distance learning classes: extent of access, amount of material and length of time (Moore and Kearsley, 2012). When a small section from a book is used, I would propose that it would not only not negatively impact sales as stated in the text, it could likely increase sales. I have written (on 2-20-14) to an author to request permission to use section(s) of her books. In my request, I stated that one of my goals would be to draw interest to her books so that the school will want to purchase these for their students. After sections have been approved for use by her publisher; likely to happen, according to the author; selection of the sections is imminent due to time lines for gaining permissions and for our class. My next step will be to go over the standards that will structure our American Literature course design; while simultaneously reviewing one book I have read and reading the other.
While reading through Web Design Principles on pages 111-112 (Moore & Kearsley, 2012), I was reminded of a computer design class I took about 4 or 5 years ago through University of Alaska Southeast. We applied several of the principles in this list. Planning for blank space on a power point is a feature that draws attention to the words. During my Reading Specialist coursework, we created visuals for use in a variety of things. I used Smart Art to create diagrams and concept maps with pictures to show how one concept relates to others to build vocabulary. I like the book example for writing a series of “if / then” sentences in a table.
Things I have found to be true as our team has met regarding the course team approach talked are taking advantage of “the greater wealth of knowledge and experience in the course team . . .” (Moore & Kearsley, 2012, p. 102), and the quality of the course design as the duties will be shared. I have jumped into the conversations regarding ways to reach students across the state at a variety of reading and writing abilities as well as making our course accessible to English language learners; a very pertinent issue in the Lower Kuskokwim School District which covers 27 schools, most of those in villages. Working through differences in how a class will be structured; such as, will students be able to use only some of the modules created? the types and amounts of literature will be included, discussions about reaching students who are college bound and need the rigor expected of an 11th grade high school student; has taken time. Also, we have worked through issues where we have needed to come to agreements as to instructional materials and I agree with the blog in our readings that states that it is difficult to transition to releasing exclusive control over decision making in course design (online learning insights, 2013). However, we are now at a place where we understand each other’s point of view and are ready to prepare a class that is truly meaningful to the wide range of student needs and interests.
The Active Mastery Learning model is designed to assign team roles that will keep the focus on the learner rather than being content-driven (online learning insights, 2013), and keep the instructional design cohesive. It is important to include people who have multimedia experience and technology (or to invest in people to gain these skills). In our text, ADDIE is the model that sets up the stages in instructional design. The stages of ADDIE are: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (module by module that includes formative—along the way—assessment) (Moore & Kearsley, 2012, pp. 98-99). In our group discussion yesterday, 2-19-14, we decided that next to knowing each standard, we need to create assessment rubrics that will either cover each standard, or groups of standards. This way we will insert engaging learning strategies/activities that meet these standards. This approach will help our activities not to be ancillary to standards, rather to be driven by standards. The standards drive design, design is created with student-driven and teacher facilitated learning as its vision. Students own their learning. Here is a graphic organizer that helps me to see how the ADDIE Model is designed to work in stages, but perhaps more as a spiral where the design group meets to revisit the progress or snags in the planning to enhance successful planning and problem-solve snafus:
The ADDIE model was used by a team of six professionals to design a blended; online and face-to-face; General Chemistry course. In this article, the analysis stage was used for “assessing student learner characteristics, as well as identifying learning objectives for the course” (Shibley, Amaral, Shank, and Shibley, 2011). This explains why our group went back to standards and assessments as a place to start. I think we got much out of discussing with each other first about who our course will include, and brainstorming ideas for focus of attention regarding topics based on team members experiences. Our initial module layout did serve as an outline that included literacy elements, cultural needs, and more. During the design stage for this General Chemistry course, the team focused on how students would engage with the content, the importance us including critical thinking and how to balance these via online tools and face-to-face interactions. The accomplishment of the course included a significant increase of student time-on-task.
ADDIE Solutions diagram retrieved on 2-20-14 from:
Moore, M. G. and Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A
systems view of online learning. Belmont, CA:
WordPress Blog, (2013, June), How to apply a team based
approach to online course design. Online Learning Insights.
Shibley, I., Amaral, K. E., Shank, J. D., and Shibley, L. R. (2011).
Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(6).