References

Australian Government - Department of Education, science and Training (2005). National Review of School Music Education. Retrieved from http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/9459/1/music_review_reportFINAL.pdf 

Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P. & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Daniel, S. J., Kanwar, A., & Uvalic-Trumbic, S. (2009). Breaking higher education's iron triangle: Access, cost, and quality. Change, March-April. Retrieved from http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/March-April%202009/full-iron-triangle.html 

EDUCAUSE, (2014). Retrieved from www.educase.eu 

I

ETI, (2014). Aims and Scope. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=riie20#.U_iDF7xdV8w

JOLT, (2014). Welcome to JOLT. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/ 

Millis, B. J. & Cottell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Salmon, G. (2006). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. London & New York:Routledge Falmer.

Taylor and Francis Online (2014). Aims and Scope. Retrieved from www.tandfonline.com/action/journalinformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=copl20#.U_llHKhhjds 

WORD COUNT: 3970

Article #9 - The intersections of curriculum development: Music, ICT and Australian music education

Article 9

Southcott, J., & Crawford, R. (2011). The intersections of curriculum development: Music, ICT and Australian music education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 122-136. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/southcott.pdf 

Summary: This qualitative study focuses on the difference between using technology as a tool to support skills based learning, and using technology “as a platform for collaborative and creative learning that resonates with students” (p. 122). The article used document analysis to examine state curricula (music and ICT). It notes that the place of music in the Australian curriculum is contentious, referring to the 2005 National Review of School Music Education (Australian Government, 2005) which stated that music was “poorly resourced, often neglected, and that general primary teachers were unprepared to deliver effective, sequential music education” (p. 124), as well as noting the importance of technology to music education. Music ICT has tended to offer support to ear training, sight singing and notational skills - using technology as computer aided instruction (CAI), often in highly-structured, teacher led learning environments that focused on skills acquisition. In contrast, it is suggested that ICT has potential to encourage creativity and independent learning (p. 125), using computer aided learning (CAL). The importance of inter-disciplinary learning is noted, as is the general nature of most curricula in describing the connections between music and ICT. The findings state that there was disparity between how “how writers of ICT curricula in Australia see the arts and music and how the writers of music curricula understand the role and use of ICT” (p. 131). It was hypothesised that as the emphasis on authentic, student centred learning increases, that the use of technology in Australian music education will move away from CAI and towards CAL. The lack of theoretical frameworks and curriculum models to address technological issues in music education was noted. Dialogue between ICT and music educators was recommended.

Evaluation: The comment on busy teachers in relation to keeping up with change is a valid point - as is the attraction of music technology for students (p. 123), and its potential to close the gap between students’ in-school and out-of-school music and technology experience and knowledge. The study has at least one missing reference (Bray, 2005). Perhaps because of the publication date (including the publication dates of the curriculum documents) the implications of Web 2.0 for music education technology (such as wikis) are not considered.

Source: Both authors hold academic positions at a leading Australia university - in particular, Jane Southcott has a long and distinguished publication history on a wide range of music education topics. As noted for Article 8, the journal should be considered a quality source. 

Relevance and Comparison to other sources: The contrast between CAI and CAL may be partly a result of the differences between curricula in the USA, UK and Australia. The CAI/CAL distinction is a useful framework for teachers to evaluate how music technology may contribute to different kinds of learning activities and outcomes. It is the first Article to explicitly examine the relationship between ICT and music education.

Article #8 - Evaluating the use of a wiki for collaborative learning.

Article 8

Feng, S.,  & Beaumont, C. ( 2010). Evaluating the use of  a wiki for collaborative learning.  Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(4), 417- 431. DOI:10.1080/14703297. 2010. 518428

Summary: Based on active research in a tertiary setting, the study examined the use of wikis in collaborative work. The aims were to identify students’ perceptions of the benefits and issues of using a wiki; to explore to what degree using a wiki facilitated students’ online learning; and to attempt to identify some principles of good practice.  Data was collected via online questionnaires, interviews with random participants, and analysis of the wiki by the researchers. The wiki project was introduced using Salmon’s five stage model of e-learning (2006):

1. access and motivation
2. online socialisation
3. information exchange
4. knowledge construction
5. knowledge development

The results suggested that a wiki can promote collaborative learning, as well as confidence, by enabling rapid feedback, access to the learning of others, and the use of user-friendly navigation and tracking functions. Identified issues were with access and possible lack of personalised space within the wiki environment, vandalism and plagiarism, difficulty with leaving messages for other students, and navigating a large wiki. 

Evaluation: One very useful aspect of the article is the introduction - it gives comprehensive overview of the structure and purpose(s) of a wiki, and contrasts it to other kinds of online learning tools. Another interesting point was that in stages 3 and 4 of Salmon’s five stage model, about 40% of the students were posting critical commentary, and that 59% felt that the wiki helped to develop their initiative to kern independently.

Source: Innovations in Education and Teaching International (IETI) is a peer reviewed jounral, published by the Staff and Educational Development Association, which aims to promote “innovation and good practice in higher education through staff and educational development and subject-related practice” (IETI, 2014).

Relevance and Comparison to other sources: Compared to Article 8, this article starts with the basics - such as what a wiki is, and how it compared to other kinds of online learning environments and etching environment. Article 8 assumes some prior knowledge. The discussion of constructivist practises is also at a more introductory level. While it was noted that, as it was small study, there was not claim to generality: however, this would be a great article as a ‘first read’ for someone interested in setting up and using a wiki as a learning/teaching activity, particularly in regards to student scaffolding on how to approach collaborative online learning.

Article #7 - Is wiki an effective platform for group course work?

Article 7

Elgort, I., Smith, A.G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(2), 195-210. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/elgort.pdf 

Summary: Based on predominantly qualitative research conducted with two postgraduate Master’s level university courses, the article aimed to address “whether wikis could facilitate collaborative learning and positively affect student attitudes to group work” (p. 196) as well as to identify which aspects of collaboration could be improved by using wikis. The participants had little experience with online tools that facilitate student centred learning, or that shift the “balance of control over the structure and content of a part of the virtual space to the student” (p. 196). The inquiry is grounded in research showing that collaboration promotes and improves learning (Millis & Cottell, 1998; Barkley, Cross and Major, 2005) and is an important and valued life skill. The article argues that wikis not only provide an opportunity for collaboration, but also actively support that collaboration - partly by making the “quantity and quality of each group member's contribution more transparent, potentially encouraging participation and making it easier to mark group work” (p. 197). 

The vast majority of participants thought that the wiki was a good tool to collect and organise information for the assignment, and that it worked well as a tool to present the results of the group assignment. Participants were less certain about whether the use of the wiki encouraged better individual participation. Group activities “need to be designed to facilitate critical judgement and assessment criteria need to foreground analysis and evaluation of information” (p. 207). There was concern that some students felt they could have achieved better work on their own, and on the difficulties of marking wiki group work. The overall results were considered encouraging.

Evaluation: Both participant courses involved the use of digital tools, and not all had used wikis before - so the findings would need to be carefully considered in relation to using wikis with younger students. Certainly the ‘how to’ of the technology would need to be scaffolded with the other learning objectives - this would help to ensure that students share and exchange ideas rather than just posting information.

Source: The authors hold tertiary academic positions. The Australasian Journal of Educational Technology is the journal of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, which aims to promote research and scholarship on the integration of technology in tertiary education, promote effective practice, and inform policy. It uses a double blind peer-review process - this journal should be considered a quality source.

Relevance and comparison to other sources: The article highlights some of the scaffolding that would be needed for students of any age, but are particularly relevant for primary/secondary students.  The literature review was very clear and useful in itself. This would be a useful article for anyone considered the use of wikis in collaborative group work. It provides a strong contrast the the kind of active research used in Article 7, and provided more information on how the lecturers viewed the use of the wiki. 

Article #6 - Motivated learning with digital learning tasks: what about autonomy and structure?

Article 6

van Loon, A., Ros, A., & Martens, R. (2012). Motivated learning with digital learning tasks: what about autonomy and structure? Education Technology Research Development, 60, 1015–1032. DOI 10.1007/s11423-012-9267-0 

Summary: The article takes a quantitative approach to examining the ways that digital learning tasks contribute to students’ motivation and their learning outcomes, and specifically the contributions made by the structuring of support of autonomy and structure. The study’s participants were over 300 Grade 5 and 6 students from eight elementary (primary) schools in the Netherlands. The article takes the position that when student are motivated, then challenging tasks are approached with greater eagerness, perseverance and pleasure and better performance, and that digital learning environments may also promote motivation in problem based tasks. However, it was also noted that such tasks place an increased demand on learners and that a media-rich environment can be distracting. The main research question emerged as “‘In what ways can digital tasks based on PBL in a hypermedia environment contribute to the motivation and learning outcomes of students?’’ (p. 1019).

Using self-determination theory (which assumes that all individuals have the desire to explore and understand their environment), the research was based on a ‘2 x 2’ design (with or without autonomy support; with or without structure) where each group of students were assigned the same digital, problem based learning task based on creative effective advertising. The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (a structured written questionnaire) was used to measure motivation - this gives a number of statements with a number assigned to show the degree to which the participate agrees and disagrees. 

The results showed that when support for autonomy and structure were utilised in a digital learning task, that there was a positive effect on motivation and learning outcomes. A lesser positive effect was noted when only structure was provided. Limitations were that this was a short task; that the questionnaire allowed only limited differentiation between the learning outcome measures; and that no -pre and post measurement were administered.

Evaluation: The directions given to students for each of the four (2x2) options were informative in terms of the kinds of language and structures that could be used for younger students in a problem based learning task. However, there could have been a greater level of detail on how the qualitative statements (correlated to numbers) was explained to these young students. 

Source: Manuscripts submitted to Education Technology Research Development undergo a blind review process involving a panel of three reviewers. As the source is from a peer reviewed journal with two authors being in tertiary academic positions, and one being a Ph.D candidate this should be considered a respectable source for research. 

Relevance and Comparison to other sources: In relation to Article six, this study is based in active research that shows how problem based learning could be structured to work successfully with younger students. While the learning activity is both process and product based, it would be interested to examine what prior knowledge was required, and to apply the same methodology to a range of content areas - mathematics, music, science - that required definitive ‘knowledge acquisition’.

Article #5 - Scaffolding Discovery Learning Spaces

Article 5

Hai-Jew, S. (2008). Scaffolding Discovery Learning Spaces. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 533-548. Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no4/hai-jew_1208.pdf 

Summary: The article addresses the necessity of learner empowerment in online discovery learning spaces (DLSs), and how this empowerment can be scaffolded. Some ‘controversies’ are noted, such as learning inaccuracies, untested ideas and the differences of how discovery learning is conceptualised in different social contexts. The position taken is that “with proper instructional design scaffolded discovery learning may be more effective, supportive of unique learners, and more communal” (p. 534). The article outlines the theoretical underpinnings of discovery learning (Vygotsky, Gardner, Piaget etc) all of which are related back to the constructivist philosophy of the social construction of knowledge. The lack of facilitation is noted as an issue in setting up a successful online discovery learning spaces, irrespective of the technical form that the learning space takes. The successful learners in such spaces tend to “have low dependency needs” (p. 534). Feedback loops offer opportunities for self reflection and evaluation. Figure 1 outlines a fairly lengthy scaffolding of the discovery learning process - this combined with a later section on designing discovery learning spaces and the kinds of learning skills students need would suggest that the kind of discovery learning space being discussed is more relevant to those teaching in post primary education. However, the later suggestion of ‘guided discovery’ could be a useful way to think about how to introduce younger learners to discovery learning, and Figure 4 (p. 542) is a complex flow chart of what kinds of learning outcomes could be expected of novice through to expert discovery learners. 

Evaluation: The article is quite complex - and while Figure 4 demonstrates a clear path for scaffolding, the article might be more successful if it discussed the needs of a novice learner at the forefront. The article does not present a conclusion as such - rather it points towards the various research opportunities in this area. While presented in a journal on online learning and teaching, the main discussions are not always linked explicitly to the use of online teaching or the necessary tools needed.

Source: “The MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching (JOLT) is a peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication that aims to promote scholarship in the use of the Internet and web-based multimedia resources in higher education” (JOLT, 2014). Published by an initiative of California State University’s Center for Distributed Learning, and authored by am academic at Kansas State University, this should be considered a reputable academic source.

Relevance and Comparison to other sources: Compared to the three Palloff and Pratt articles (each of which is more driven at teachers new to online learning), this article presents a more theoretical framework. This article is less useful to beginner teachers of either discovery or online learning, but it does present a thorough theoretical discussion of the concepts, issues and possible scaffolding involved.

Article #4 - Making the Transition: Helping Teachers to Teach Online.

Article 4

Palloff, R.M., & Pratt, K. (2000). Making the Transition: Helping Teachers to Teach Online. EDUCAUSE, Nashville. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EDU0006.pdf 

Summary: The article argues that in HE, online distance education this is the response to financial, quality and customer pressures. The authors state a preference for “asynchronous learning environments in which students can read material and post to discussions on their own time schedules. This environment allows students the luxury of time for thought and reflection on material, which “we believe enhances the learning process” (p. 3). Technology training is only part of the problem in HE; how to organise and deliver material is also a challenge. “Electronic pedagogy” needs to take into account factors that might be more straightforward in the face-to-face classroom:

• Familiarity with and access to the technology - more than just training staff in a new platform or piece of software; the technology should be functional, simple to use, and visually appealing.
• Establishing collaboratively decided guidelines for learning and participation - these should give clear goals but also offer flexibility, encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning.
• Promoting collaborative learning and reflection - this ensures the social construction of knowledge, promotes initiative in learners and “forms the foundation of a learning community” (p. 6). This also requires ‘facilitation’ rather than traditional ‘teaching’.
• Aiming to have every participant participate to their fullest capability - not just a question of quantity, but also a question of what kinds of critical thinking, analysis and atmosphere are required.
• Students commenting on each others’ work is also an important factor in ODE.

By moving to ODE, teachers also learn something knew, and become lifelong learners. 

Evaluation: The opening thesis is that cyberspace teaching requires moving “beyond old models of pedagogy” - while online distance education needs different forms and frameworks of (learning) management, it could be argued that the pedagogical philosophy should be the same - based on a constructivist, learning environment that fosters respect and places collaborative, social construction of knowledge/learning  at the centre of the experience. 

Source: As previously discussed, the authors should be considered reliable, expert sources. This paper was presented at the EDUCAUSE educational conference ("a non profit organisation whose mission is to advance higher education through the use of information technology" (EDUCASE, 2014)). As such it was probably not peer reviewed. The slightly less formal tone (compared to a journal article) does not bely the quality of the content.

Relevance and Comparison to other sources: The article clearly outlines the underlying pedagogical and philosophical factors of ODE, that need to be considered by this setting up any kind of online learning. The references offer very relevant further reading. Articles 2,4 and 5 link online teaching, learning and philosophy to provide a clear outline of the major factors involved in administering/teaching an online learning environment. 

Article #3 - The Role and Responsibility of the Learner in the Online Classroom

Article 3

Palloff, R.M., & Pratt, K. (2005). The Role and Responsibility of the Learner in the Online Classroom. 19th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (University of Wisconsin). www/uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/03_24.pdf 

"Simply interacting with one another is not enough" (p. 2)

Summary: The opening point is interesting and ties in with the concerns of Article 3 - “When online learning was in its infancy, the focus in the field was to orient faculty to the use of technology and how to develop an online course” (p. 1). The transition to a focus on the student and their processes of learning are the focus, concentrating on:

• openness
• flexibility and humour
• honesty
• willingness to take responsibility for community formation
• willingness to work collaboratively

A clear distinction between participation and collaboration/contribution is drawn. Asynchronous communication is recommended - partly to avoid the technical difficulties of synchronous requirements, and to allow learners to work and think in their own time. A clear set of recommendations for teachers is given (p. 3): 

Evaluation: This is an excellent unpacking of the kinds of behaviours that should be expected of students who participate in an online learning environment or activity. However, the expectation are high and seem more pitched at adult learners, rather than secondary or primary students, despite the recommendation to "teach students about online learning" (p. 3) These behaviours would need to be taught and scaffolded carefully to match the abilities and age of the participants and could be considered as learning goals in themselves. The direction for the instructor to "set the stage" (p. 2) speaks to the needs for a particular learning atmosphere - but many of the points above are necessary for any group project/learning, and are not necessarily specific to online learning. The exception to this is in the discussion of how text based communication can be misinterpreted without facial cues. It would have been useful to point out the differences between offline/online learning more explicitly.

Source: As previously discussed, the authors are well published in their field, and should be considered reliable sources. The slightly chatter tone of this conference paper (compared to a journal article) does not bely the importance or academic clarity of the points they make.

Relevance and comparison to other sources: This article acts as a kind of coin-flip to the Palloff and Pratt article already discussed - focusing on the learner/learning rather than the teacher/teaching. It would be very useful for teachers setting up online learning.  

Article #2 - The art of online teaching

Article 2 (Course material)

Palloff, R.M., & Pratt, K. (2001). The art of online teaching. Lessons from the cyberspace classroom. The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Summary: “Unlike the face to face classroom, in online distance education attention needs to be paid to developing a sense of community in the group of participants in order for the learning process to be successful” (p. 20). This places online distance education (ODE) in opposition to the traditional face-to-face classroom; it also seems to assume that face-to-face classrooms are unable to develop a “sense of community”. This point makes more sense within the context of an article that takes the approach that not every teacher is suited to teaching online, and few teachers have access to the training or time needed to create a deep, flexible online learning environment. 

Evaluation: As the title proclaims, the chapter is didactic in nature, rather than explicitly opening up ideas for debate or pointing towards a future scenario. The article makes useful, if sometimes obvious recommendations, such as pairing those new to online teaching with those who have more experience (p. 23). Other statements are of a more dubious nature, such as “Working online certainly takes more time than teaching face-to-face”, which ignores context as a factor. In recommending asynchronous learning environments, group work is not considered - and although the chapter seems aimed a HE teachers, group work does not get much discussion. Synchronous vs asynchronous environments are touched on via a discussion of chat functions, but the effects on the learner of asynchronous learning are assumed to be  positive (p. 25).  The chapter is extremely successful at pointing out the ‘black holes’ of those heading into online teaching for the first time, and quotes published research to support their ideas. Lists of what to/not to do certainly give many ideas to teachers new to online DE, or offer a refresher for a more experienced online educator.

Source: This book chapter is cited more than 1000 times on Google Scholar, with most of the citations coming from articles in peer-reviewed journals. The authors have long careers in education and technology. This should be considered a respectable source.

Relevance and Comparison to other sources: Although only published one year apart, this is a very different article to that by Collis and Moonen. This functions more as a ‘how to’ guide for planning and implementation of online teaching, and is fairly black and white on what works and what doesn’t. It is firmly based in the authors’ interpretation of best practice, and is not a theoretical or exploratory article.

Article #1 - Flexible Learning in a Digital World

Article 1 (Course material)

Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2002). Flexible Learning in a Digital World. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 17(3), 217-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268051022000048228

Summary: The article serves as an introduction to ideas and themes explored in the book Flexible Learning in a Digital World: experiences and expectations (1996), and explores a theoretical model on how the inter-relationships between technology, pedagogy, implementation and institution affect the conceptualisation and realisation of flexible learning (FL) spaces in higher education (HE). FL is acknowledged as a contested or confused term, often used synonymously with distance education (DE) - here, FL is framed as being about learner choice. The theoretical constructs are related to pedagogical best practice, along with an outline of the factors that may constrain learning flexibility.

Evaluation: The article presents an overview of terminology and concepts, particularly useful for those new to using technology in education. Table 1 (The lessons learned) serves as a clear guide to any learning activity. 

One aspect of the analysis that is a little dated is a statement (p. 220) in reference to Figure 2 (p. 221)- that DE is only related to No.15 (“Time & place where contact with instructor and other student occurs”). Perhaps the most common forms of FL in HE in 2002 led to this statement, but certainly DE (as a FL concept) is also strongly related to the other point in Figure 2, such as -

3. Tempo/pace of studying

5. Topics of the course

1. Times (for starting and finishing a course) and 2. Times (for submitting assignments and interacting with the course) - particularly relevant to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).

The relationship between the degree of flexibility of learning, and the acquisition/contribution model is also useful, although the point that “pedagogy should reflect both acquisition and contribution-oriented models” (p. 219) could be further reinforced so an to not negatively characterise learning contexts where the the acquisition phase is particularly important.

Source: The first issue of Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning appeared in 1986. It is published by the Taylor and Francis group, and utilises an “anonymised refereeing” as part of a peer-review process (Taylor and Francis Online, 2013). An online perusal shows the journal’s strong presence within academic search engines. The authors have high level positions in HE. This should be considered a reputable source.

Relevance: Teaching is a time pressured profession, and the time needed to design and establish a move away from a teacher led learning environment to FL, or a flipped classroom or a VLE is considerable. This article outlines the kind of thinking that needs to be done at the outset in order to prevent technology being used only as a digital filing cabinet and to enable students to fully engage in constructing their own learning, in either a technologically bereft or rich environment.

Preamble (Assignment #1)

Preamble

The sources in the following nine posts have been chosen mainly in regards to exploring the theory and issues around setting up a digital/online learning environment. As part of my job teaching music in a private independent school in the United Kingdom, I will shortly be required to set up learning spaces/pages on Firefly (http://fireflylearning.com/) - which incorporates a learning platform, intranet and VLE.