Telecommunications in Education Examining Distributed Teaching and Learning

Telecommunications in Education: Examining Distributed Teaching and Learning Environments (EDER 677 L. 91) Online Team Building: Leadership Issues for the Asynchronous Class and for the Web Site on October 24 from Calgary © E. Kowch 2002 1

Housekeeping • Some pointers for… 1. 2. 3. 4. Your DL Portfolio (Web Site) Online Discussion Thread Summaries Online Conference Summaries The (Online) Teaching Project © E. Kowch 2002 2

Housekeeping. Your Personal Distributed Learning (DL) Portfolio © E. Kowch 2002 3

Housekeeping Some Personal DL Portfolio Evaluation Criteria - (from the course outline and our discussions): 1. Contains information about you and your distributed learning interests (can have links to your other classes too). 3. Has a designer determined background and graphic look (per our screen design fundamentals class material). 4. Demonstrates a good, logical layout and navigation structure which complements and/or enhances your web site. Has a “look and feel” that you like. 5. Contains one or more images. 6. Contains your Discussion Thread Summary and a narrative about that leadership event from a DL / 677 perspective. 7. Contains your Centra Session Outline (or session) and a narrative about that leadership event from a DL / 677 perspective. 8. Contains your 677 paper as a publishable document 9. Contains an overall narrative stating your perspective on DL and telecom (this is likely the first part of the Portfolio). © E. Kowch 2002 4

What your personal DL portfolio might look like. . Housekeeping (these are just ideas folks, not prescriptions. . This is your “story” : -)) 1. An introduction space that is your narrative on Distributed Learning and Telecommunication in 2. A Resource Centre (web page : -) organized by categories representing what you feel are important 3. A Project Centre where you have (1) a narrative or analysis of the important (pros and cons) of 4. A Research Centre where you publish your paper. Live links in the paper add a useful online feature, 5. A Teaching Centre where your online project exists, perhaps with a preamble or lesson “plan” to 6. A look and feel that represents you. If you are experienced with the web publishing technologies - 7. You taught us, in one discussion thread, that “Simplicity is King” online. This is not a Education. (You could use the session themes as “titles” and present your perspective on each theme. ). categories or ideas about DL and online learning. Consider this a library for others that represents the best of what you would like others to know on the topics of interest to you, from the course. leading (a) an online discussion thread and (b) an online audio graphic conference and (2) artifacts from those online creations. pictures can be put in, etc. . Have fun with it. help pedagogues understand your intent. spread your wings and do your art. If you are new to web publishing, remember that online text, organized well among logical web site architecture is just as meaningful to the “surfer”. course in design or instructional design, so this online DL “scrapbook”l can be very simple and it can achieve the criteria designed to guide you to a representation of your ideas on DL. Have some fun with it! © E. Kowch 2002 5

Housekeeping Online Discussion Forum Summary Guide (from the home page) • Criteria 1. The highlights and key points of the weekly online discussion 2. Integrative ideas about the related class session discussion 3. Critical comments linked to on the readings assigned for the week 4. Links to further readings on the web (the beach pictures are because it was -14 C in Calgary last night. . And we are trying to ignore winter Knocking, knocking. . !) © E. Kowch 2002 6

Housekeeping Major Project (Your Online Teaching Resource) • In an introduction “space”, define the project (using project proposal as a guide can help you organize the introduction giving the browser/learner and advance organizer). Recall the format where you state: 1. 2. 3. 4. the intended audience the learning goals project specifications related research and resources • Quite simply, the project is one lesson with one learning objective. Again, simplicity is king. For example: (Because you can’t get evaluative feedback to the learner, you can leave instructions in the introduction about how this will be done for the learner). • This is really an exercise in developing a simple web based learning project because we can’t integrate multiple CMC modes and media in the scope of just one online class with current technology (imagine. . In 10 years!). For now, Imagine that you can define a “target” learner (age, ability), and then offer them a lesson -- using a web site -- where the learner accomplishes a clearning outcome. (take this opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge of the CMC topics that are applicable for your learning event. ) © E. Kowch 2002 7

Models Objectives for this Class • Explore models of team (group) and community development in an online course environment. • Compare and Contrast strategies for building community online. • Investigate the ideas of ‘community’ surrounding online course design, delivery with a smidgen of thought here about leadership in the whole Distributed Learning process. The idea of leadership, including human resource development, etc. . within the DL or larger Edtech field context is an emerging idea today… if you are interested in this topic for your Masters Thesis, I can help. © E. Kowch 2002 8

Models 4 Models from the Educational Technology Field Literature about Online Group Development 1. Tuckman & Jensen (1977) – Linear model 2. Mc. Clure (1998) – Seven Stage model 3. Mc. Grath & Hollingshead (1994) – Impact of Technology on Group Development 4. Schopler, Abell, & Galinsky (1998) – System Levels © E. Kowch 2002 9

Models 1. A Linear Model for Online Group Development The Five distinct Stages of Online Group Development: 1. Forming - students discuss framework for the class with the instructor 2. Storming - conflict arising from uncertainty, different knowings 3. Norming - group construction of modes of conduct, ideologies, knowings 4. Performing - feeling comfortable with one another, working together, trusting 5. Adjourning - formal good-byes and the necessity of that in human interaction (Tuckman & Jensen (1977) see Paloff, p. 126. ) © E. Kowch 200210

Models 2. Seven Stage (Harmony) Model for Online Group Development A Possible Descent into conflict 1. Pre-forming - introductions, email 2. Unity - leading/following online events 3. Disunity - risk taking shows student comfort 4. Conflict-confrontation - instructor interventions required to mediate ideas 5. Disharmony - a student is uncomfortable in the group 6. Harmony - re-engagement with support 7. Performing - group or individual work in consultation with others in the class (After Mc. Clure, 1998) Possible Ascent out of conflict Question: Are these stages of development that can occur in a different order? (Answer: Yes, some groups never conflict and still Engage in highly expressive discourse. Mc. Clure still provides a conceptual frame that allows us to contextualize conflict in an online process) © E. Kowch 200211

Models 3. Mc. Grath Model: Factors and Functions Affecting Online Groups A. The Three Main Factors leading to successful/ unsuccessful online groups: (gee, I’m glad they have included “people” (says Gene ; -). . 1. People 2. Tasks 3. Technology B. Three “functions” that characterize online groups 1. Production – the achievement of the ability to complete a tangible task 2. Well-being – the achievement sense of individual satisfaction (needs are being met within the group) 3. Member support – a sense of safe space has been achieved (Mc. Grath & Hollingshead, 1994) © E. Kowch 200212

Models 3. Mc. Grath Model: Factors and Functions Affecting Online Groups C. 3 modes of operation used by groups to achieve the 3 functions: 1. Inception: group members start to work together to understand a common task. 2. Problem Solving: the main reason why groups come together online - a search for understandings or learning solutions. 3. Conflict Resolution: the search for agreement in our understanding 4. Execution: The completion of a task. (Mc. Grath & Hollingshead, 1994) • If this is sounding a little behaviorist… well… it is. The field needs to build upon these models. © E. Kowch 200213

Models 4. The System “Levels” Model for Online Groups There are three system levels - (observations of online groups made by noting the differences between online and face to face groups as a defining characteristic for online groups). 1. Individual – as online group members, our electronic personality has many parts, and members can use the relative anonymity of online work, with the absence of physical cues to manifest these personalities at will. 2. Group – we can pace responses and create time gaps that require groups to meet online in their own time and space. 3. Environmental – the technology that ensures clear, unfettered connection for the individuals and the group. (Schopler, Abell, & Galinsky, 1998) • See a Gestalt of these models in Paloff and Pratt, page 138. © E. Kowch 200214

Online Communities: Communities A Wider View of “Groups” and “Collaboration © E. Kowch 200215

Communities Online Communities • Foundational Issues (Kowch & Schwier, 1998). 1. 2. 3. Community should be aesthetically appealing (Sergiovanni, 1996) Moral connections should be considered (Sackney & Walker, 1996) Constructivist principles are the pillars of this kind of community. • Four types of Learning Communities 1. Communities of relationship - where concerns and knowledge is shared (ie: online womens’ support groups) Communities of Place - where members enjoy a common locale (ie: fishers of the Atlantic Salmon online) Communities of Mind - Shared interests are the reason for this community (ie: students or academics working on a paper) Communities of Memory - a collection of people who could otherwise be alone, where a memory is a focal point for interaction (ie: Holocaust survivors online) 2. 3. 4. © E. Kowch 200216

Communities (Kowch & Schwier, 1998) © E. Kowch 200217

Communities Combining Educational Technology (DL) and Organization theory: Exploring a new kind of Leadership for successful, DL- Engaged Organizations of the Future © E. Kowch 200218

Sustainable DL Communities Questions about Learning Communities: Contexts for DL • 1. Ask yourself: When you plan to provide or purchase Distributed Learning, do you consider the nature of the organisation that is providing the education? Is that a factor in your design? 2. Do you consider or the nature of the organization in which the learner is situated as part of the design and distribution of the distance education event(s)? 3. Recall our discussions so far on collaboration and codependency between people developing and delivering distance education in schools, companies or higher education institutions. We are codependent in DL. 4. Distributed learning is a disruptive technology, it changes education institutions. As such, we need to understand how we change the institution too. That is the study of a learning community. © E. Kowch 200219

Sustainable DL Communities ? • As instructional designers or distance learning architects, you will have a varying role in the reconfiguration of institutions that are preparing to excel in the knowledge era. • By definition, that puts you in a leadership role, inevitably working with teams of professionals (Maxcy, 1995). • Do you want your organization to have a high capacity for creating online learning communities? As a distributed learning graduate in today’s economy, You need leadership skills to complement your educational technology and DL skills. © E. Kowch 200220

Sustainable DL Communities Creating Sustainable Learning Communities for the Knowledge Era: A Challenge for New Kinds of Leaders* Premises 1. There is a shift away from critical social models of education within education administration and education specialty areas (Bates, 1994). 2. There is a shift from functionalist to post stucturalist models of education leadership at all levels of education today (Cibulka, 1999). 3. There is a shift from behaviorist to constructivist or post constructivist models for instruction and design (Wilson, 1996). * (Kowch after Pace-Marshall, 1995; Drucker, 1997). © E. Kowch 200221

Sustainable DL Communities Assumptions about new knowledge environments for the successful organisation of the future Leadership in sustainable learning communities must: 1. Be personalized, flexible and coherent 2. Be individually and externally networked (socially and in a telecom sense), not bounded by geography or temporal space. 3. Accountable to the learner, to provide adaptive institutional learning environments. 4. Provide open and generative learning environments. 5. Provide education/training focused on inquiry. 6. Learning environs must be playful, trusting and responsible. (Pace-Marshall, 1997). © E. Kowch 200222

Sustainable DL Communities The Conditions for such Leadership: 1. Identity Development in the Organization 2. Information Architectural design in the Organization 3. Relationship Building in the Organization © E. Kowch 200223

Sustainable DL Communities The Conditions: The Leader as Identity Builder 1. Bring the system together to “think about itself” and to make decisions about DL, as an organization. 2. Include the expertise and experience of everyone in the system in realizing the organization’s fundamental beliefs and values. 3. Clearly and continuously identify patterns in the organization’s emerging goals, and recognize how each individual is committed to that reality. 4. Make decisions at the local level, based upon a strong sense of mutually understood organizational identity (this is who we are and this is what we do). 5. Promote individual and organizational freedom and efficacy. © E. Kowch 200224

Sustainable DL Communities The Conditions: The Leader as Information Architect 1. Allow information of all kinds to be a flow of energy, not an energy sink. 2. Create open and multiple pathways for connectiveness. 3. Bring the environment’s “voice” into the information system. 4. Continuously generate and share new knowledge. 5. Promote honest dialogue and feedback, (async and sync modes). 6. Encourage frequent and rapid experimentation. 7. Seek our complex, ambiguous and paradoxical information and make it public. © E. Kowch 200225

Sustainable DL Communities The Conditions: The Leader as Relationship Builder • Create an maintain a network, not structure, of relations between codependent people who: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Create and maintain fluid webs of dialog and interaction. Establish open access to people in the network. Promote diversity of all kinds. Establish power sharing by mutually respected influence & trust. Build a capacity for reflective inquiry so that Permeable, flexible organisation boundaries allow DL adjustment for continuous change (social, technological, pedagogical, demographic). 7. Tolerate messiness and allow overlapping relations in the network. © E. Kowch 200226

Works Cited Cibulka, J. G. (1996). The reform and survival of American public schools: an institutional perspective. In R. L. Crowson, W. L. Boyd and H. B. Mawhinney (Eds. ), The politics of education and the new institutionalism (pp. 7 -21). London, UK: Falmer Press. Drucker, P. (1997). How generational shifts will transform organizational life. In F. Hesselbein (Ed. ), Organizations of the Future (pp. 71 -86). San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass. Kowch, E and Schwier, R. (1998). Considerations in the construction of technology-based virtual learning communities. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 26(1), 1 -12. Mc. Clure, B. Putting a New Spin on Groups. Hillsdale, N. J. : Erlbaum, 1998. Mc. Grath, J. , and Hollingshead, A. Groups Interacting with Technology. Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage, 1994. Sackney, L. , Walker, K. , & Mitchell, C. (1996). Postmodernism and power in school organizations: Heat, hassles, and hurdles Harvard Education Review. Schopler, J. , Abell, M. , and Galinsky, M. “Technology-Based Groups: A Review and Conceptual Framework for Practice. ” Social Work, May 1998, 4(3), 254 -269. Sergiovanni, T. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Tuckman, B. , and Jensen, M. “Stages of Small Group Development Revisited. ” Group and Organizational Studies, 1977, 2(4), 419 -427. Wilson, B. (2001). Trends and futures of education: Implications for distance education. Retrieved December, 2001, from Colorado State University, Instructional Technology Web site: http: //carbon. cudenver. edu/~bwilson/Trends. And. Futures. html © E. Kowch 200227

For next session • • Contribute to this week’s discussion forum. Check out the Web Site Home Page for further instructions (core readings). Work on your Online Project and Start conceptualizing the overall shape of your Personal DL portfolio web site. Adieu from Calgary. . © E. Kowch 200228