Estudio del NO en el desarrollo de AAA a través de la activación de

The 2nd _{iteration of the course was implemented in the June mid-semester university break}

and, like the 1st _{iteration, ran for five consecutive weeks. A confirmation of registration email}

was sent to all participants that included a copy of the course information learning guide, instructions about how to access and login to the Moodle LMS, instructions for downloading and installing Skype and Diigo software and advice to contact their IT department (if

necessary to help them install the software before the course commenced). The email also advised they would need to dedicate approximately four hours a week (16 hours in total) to complete the course.

A welcome email was sent to all participants one week prior to the course advising that the LMS was now open and encouraged them to view the navigation video and complete the orientation activities before the course commenced.

Figure 18 below illustrates the revised course structure for the 2nd _{iteration of the course.}

Like the 1st _{iteration, participants first logged into the Moodle LMS. They could then access}

the open companion website that included detailed instructions about how to complete the course tasks, examples of completed tasks and links to web resources. However, to avoid having to recreate information and links about suggested technologies, pedagogies and tutorials each time the course was implemented, participants were re-directed to an existing website: Technology Toolbox for Educators that already contained these resources and supports.

Weekly reflection forums were added to the Moodle LMS to replace the blog activity and specific activities were included on the open companion website or on the LMS to help participants learn how Diigo and Skype could be used to support student learning.

• Diigo activity – All readings were added to the Diigo library and links were provided on the Lectures & Reading page on the companion website to redirect participants to the Diigo library. Participants were asked to share their

understanding of the theoretical concepts covered in the readings by adding comments to the relevant resource in the Diigo group library. Short 10 minute weekly lectures about the concepts covered in the readings were also added to the Lectures & Readings page on the companion website.

• Skype activity – Social presence information was added to the Groups page on the companion website, and a reading about using Skype to build social presence was added to the reading list. A question was also added to the Week 1 reflection forum on the Moodle LMS forum asking students to share their experience of how they had used Skype in their courses or to reflect on how Skype could be used in their future courses.

These and other recommendations identified in Table 16 were implemented prior to the 2nd

iteration of the course. As for Iteration 1, participant feedback, facilitator reflections and data gathered from the discussion forums, Skype and Diigo were analysed to identify areas for improving the course design for future iterations.

Ten people commenced the course (8 female & 2 male) and four participants (all female) finished the course. Two of these participants were lecturers from New South Wales and the other two were teaching and learning advisors (one from Western Australia and one from overseas). Four participants completed the prospective teaching survey and three

participants completed the anonymous online course evaluation survey. The following section discusses feedback received from participants about the course design and implementation.

Participant  feedback  

In response to Q.38, where participants were asked to indicate what they liked about the course (Table 11), participants indicated some of the strongest aspects of the course were: the support provided by the facilitator (50%), the range of open access resources (25%) and the exposure to new technologies (25%).

Table 11: Iteration 2 - Q.38 What did you think were the strongest aspects of the course?

Categories Themes % Teaching presence (Total 100%) Facilitator support 50% Resources/support 25% Technologies/support 25%

Like the 1st _{iteration, participants highly valued the elements of teaching presence (100%)}

incorporated in the course. In particular, they appreciated the support provided by the facilitator. One commented, “the generosity and knowledge of the lecturer in responding to all questions very quickly” (Respondent 2-2) and another said, “the facilitators skills, knowledge and timely response to all questions” (Respondent 3-2). These comments highlight how important it is for the teacher to be actively involved in the online environment.

They also commented that the, “access to new technologies and detailed assistance in understanding on how to use them” (Respondent 2-2) assisted their learning and that the course resources were very useful:

The video content and readings were good and relevant and they provided a good start for each week to outline what was required (Respondent 1-2).

Areas they thought could be improved in response to Q.39 (Table 12) were: navigation between the closed LMS site and the open web (40%), the course technologies (20%) and the low level of collaboration amongst participants (40%).

Table 12: Iteration 2 - Q.39 What areas do you think could be improved?

Categories Themes %

Teaching presence (Total 60%) Course design 40% Technologies/support 20% Social presence (Total 40%) Collaboration 40%

It was anticipated that participants unaccustomed to working between open and closed Internet platforms might initially feel confused. Therefore, a How to navigate around the

course video was provided in the Getting started section on the LMS. However, it appeared a

couple of the participants struggled with the flexible pathways incorporated in the course design. One participant admitted to confusion about when they were in the LMS and when they were on the open web:

I felt lost sometimes as to whether I was in the course site, or taken out to other sites. I'm not sure how you could improve - perhaps more of an indication of which bits would open outside the course and some navigation to help get back to the course might be good (Respondent 1-2).

The above comment indicates this participant did not view the navigation video, or they may have lacked the necessary skills to navigate the abundance of resources available on the open web (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008, p. 5). In the not too distant future, it is expected that LMS platforms will be able to seamlessly integrate with open web technologies (Pugliese, 2012), thus alleviating the need for multiple sign-ins which should make moving between closed and open spaces much easier for learners. The same respondent also advised they

experienced technology issues and didn’t know why:

I had a lot of trouble with Google Drive, even though I’m familiar with it and use it regularly – not sure why I had so many issues (Respondent 1-2).

It is possible that they were familiar with the Google Drive features that they personally used but not with the sharing and collaboration affordances that support student learning. A couple of participants suggested that the low number of active participants hindered collaboration among participants. One stated:

The activities were well designed to encourage sharing, collaboration, discussion but the numbers in the course didn't result in it happening very well

(Respondent 2-2).

Another wrote:

There were too few participants and so the collaborative aspects were not what I believe they could have been (Respondent 3-2).

The facilitator also felt that participant interaction was very low in this iteration and her reflections about this issue and recommendations for improvement are discussed in the following sections.

Facilitator’s  reflections  

Again, a reflective e-journal was used to record the facilitator’s reflections during the course about design and implementation aspects that worked well, and areas that could be

improved in future iterations. Areas that the facilitator identified that could be improved were: participant interaction, the installation of the Skype and Diigo software and time allocation.

The facilitator was not sure if the limited participant interaction was because of the low number of active participants, as suggested above by a couple of participants. Or because the pedagogical tools employed in the 2nd _{iteration for students to reflect on and share their ideas}

about the readings were teacher-created spaces (e.g., LMS forums, Diigo group) rather than student-created spaces (blogs) as with the 1st _{iteration. The facilitator also noted that some}

participants still struggled with the installation of the course applications (e.g., Skype and Diigo), which primarily appeared to be due to institutional restrictions.

No-one in the 2nd _{iteration flagged the recommended time allocation as an issue, although}

the facilitator identified that participants still found it difficult to complete the tasks by the suggested due dates.

Recommended  improvements  

As with the 1st _{iteration, feedback gathered from participants together with facilitator}

reflections were aligned with the components of the authentic online community of learning framework to identify recommendations for improving the next iteration of the course. These are described in Table 13.

Table 13: Iteration 2 - Issues and recommendations for improvements

Elements Issues Recommendations

Learning

environment Some learners had difficulty navigating between the open and closed spaces

Delete the companion website. Most content, supports and resources are included in the Technology Toolbox for Educators and task instructions do not need to be revisited after the course, so they can be moved to the LMS.

Reinforce the importance of viewing the navigation video to assist students to identify when they are in an open website or within the closed LMS environment.

Elements Issues Recommendations Social and cognitive presence Low interaction amongst learners despite opportunities to collaborate and share ideas

Promote the next course more widely to try and increase participant numbers.

Contact the University Teaching and Learning unit to see if they would include the course on the staff training calendar.

Contact Postgraduate office and request them to circulate the course details to all local universities through their official channels.

Include more targeted discussion of relevant concepts in the readings.

Teaching

presence Participants struggled to complete tasks by due dates

Keep time-commitment the same 4 hours per week. Include an optional F2F orientation session to assist participants with downloading software and encourage them to complete the orientation activities before the course commences.

Stress the need to complete the orientation activities before the course commences.

Technologies Encourage more learner- learner interaction?

Re-introduce the blog for reflection and articulation to see if this student-created technology encourages greater interaction and collaboration among participants.

Installation of technologies (Skype, Diigo)

Advise participants to install required software before commencing the course so they can seek assistance form their IT staff if they encounter problems. Offer the opportunity for participants to attend a Face- to-face orientation session (the same as the online orientation) to help them feel more comfortable working between applications.

As with Iteration 2, improvements were made to the course design and implementation procedures ready for the 3rd _{iteration of the course.}