Public schools are making hard decisions right now, do they continue face to face (F2F) learning with added risk of spreading COVID or do they eliminate the risk and provide instruction online. Schools are erring on the side of caution, for the safety of students and faculty, and moving instruction online. However, these changes raise some significant questions. How can we design instruction online that meets or exceeds the quality of instruction delivered through F2F learning? How do we design online instruction? Is designing online instruction the same as designing instruction for F2F?
First, all students have the potential to learn at the same rate if not greater online compared to the classroom. It isn't the method in which we learn that provides results, it's the delivery of instruction and what happens in between that produces results.
Online learning is a broad term used to describe multiple forms of learning without being tied to a geographical location. This form of learning can be in the form of college enrollment, MOOCs, certificate courses such EdX or Udemy, Zoom, discussion boards, webinars, etc... There are multiple ways to teach and learn with technology, which fall under the umbrella term, online learning. However, when we look at public education and online learning, we know that we have to provide some formal instruction without being in the same physical location. It is important for teachers and administrators to know and understand that simply moving F2F instruction online is NOT online learning.
In examining the difference, we can first look at the time spent in developing courses for F2F and online. Instructional designers generally use ratios to determine how long it takes to develop a course online. For instance, if designing a very basic online class with zero interactivity, it would take roughly 49 development hours for each instructional hour. In this case, students are generally reading and writing with limited deeper level cognition. Whereas a class designed with full interactivity, including knowledge transfer, could take an upwards of 716 hours of development to one hour of instructional time, this obviously would include graphic creations and using authoring software, something far beyond a public educator’s skill level (“ELearning Development Calculator - Estimate the Time to Create a Course,” n.d.). The point here is that online learning takes time to develop courses that are interactive and engaging, motivating students to transfer knowledge. We cannot simply use the same content from a F2F class, online learning requires a revision of instructional strategies, assessments, and learning activities (Morrison, 2012).
We have to make changes so that teaching is facilitating and learning is active. We as teachers need to design instruction that is student centered, which means no more direct instruction! Students cannot be passive receivers of information while online, mainly because of intrinsic motivation, or lack thereof. We all remember that great history teacher who was hilarious and could teach in front of the class for 42 minutes and it felt like 10. Well, that cannot happen anymore, neither can the teacher continually remind Johnny who is falling asleep to wake up, obviously, because a teacher isn’t there! All these F2F incidences where the teacher mediated will not happen online. Therefore, course design should be focused on supporting multiple students with varying motivation levels. This forces teachers to differentiate instruction using multiple instructional strategies incorporating collaboration and feedback! Here is a great video to help you.
It is important however, that we first examine the students we will be teaching, that’s the analysis phase of ADDIE for instructional designers. We know what makes a good online student for public education, they should be self-motivated, independent learner, with good time management and technological skills, and is intrinsically motivated (“Characteristics of a Successful Online Learner,” n.d.). Now how many students carry those qualities in public education? I’d be willing to bet, not many, therefore, it is important for us teachers to combat the students’ lack of skills by providing them with the following:
It is a very difficult for teachers as many of us are teaching F2F and online with little to no background in online course development. Administrators also need to recognize that in order to develop quality online courses, time and resources are needed. Again, we cannot simply move what we did in a F2F classroom to online, we will see students inevitably fail.
Bowman, L., Tighe, M. J., Jr., Bender, S., Escott, T. E., & Tighe Jr, J. M. (2010). Online Learning: A User-Friendly Approach for High School and College Students. R&L Education. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/waldenu/detail.action?docID=616377
Characteristics of a Successful Online Learner. (n.d.). North Carolina Virtual. Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://ncvps.org/characteristics-of-a-successful-online-learner/
eLearning Development Calculator—Estimate the Time to Create a Course. (n.d.). ELearningArt. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://elearningart.com/development-calculator/
Morrison, D. (2012, August 6). How [not] to Design an Online Course. Online Learning Insights. https://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/how-not-to-design-an-online-course/
Are you looking for a digital website credibility checklist that is interactive?
It is no secret more information is available everyday online. We as educators need to instruct our students to vet online content, but we as educators also need to stay abreast on our skills for vetting content. Below is a link to a Google Sheet which includes checkboxes for vetting content online. The spreadsheet also includes a formula which determines whether the source is likely credible or not based on the number of boxes checked.
Privacy has been a concern for many months now given the situation with Facebook and Cambridge. Everything we do online is tracked and traced back to our accounts through web and mobile based applications. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and all websites and mobile applications collect information regarding your IP address, geographical location, search history, text messages, phone calls, the quizzes on social media, pictures, videos, audio and other information you’ve used while connected to the internet. This could include smart connected cars, thermostats, TVs, banking app (keep in mind the images you used to mobile deposit that’s connected to your phone which is connected to your Google Drive), and baby monitors (Internet of things, IoT). Because all these devices are connected to the internet, it has created jobs for analyst and the advancement of technology such as Artificial Intelligence; however, with anything digital, there are always criminals waiting to take advantage of all this information. Also, the other caveat, like most people, we assume free is a good thing. Except when it involves technology because free, isn’t free. The data associated with the free account is collected, sold and purchased by other organizations trying to fight for American Greenbacks at the expense of Americans privacy. It should be noted that the UK's technology privacy law called General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is something essential to prevent organizations from collecting information without approval. Unfortunately, it doesn’t protect Americans, leaving the internet as the Wild West.
I’ve written about the concerns regarding educational technology and student privacy, especially since educational technology can be compromised just like Target’s data information center (Read it here - Since writing the article I've upgraded my Chrome extensions to include Adblock Plus and Disconnect). Also, the FBI has issued a warning stating “widespread collection of student data could have privacy and safety implications if compromised or exploited.” They also provide an example of a cybercriminal accessing multiple school districts’ servers to see student and teacher information regarding health records, demographics, and contact information (Read it here). Therefore, it is vital for us to educate our students and parents and provide recommendations on how to better protect their privacy.
To give you better insight as to what Google tracks regarding you and your accounts, you can visit myactivty.google.com. Log in with a Google accounts and click “Activity Controls” in the left column. Below are the controls to whether Google is tracking your data:
1. Web and App Activity – For most G Suite users, this feature will be paused based on the organization, this feature saves all of your activity through your browser, maps, and other Google services.
2. Location History – self-explanatory, but this feature collects each geo location you’ve visited.
3. Device Information – this feature saves your contacts, calendars, apps, and other data.
4. Voice & Audio – as you record your voice, Google collects it to better its software.
5. YouTube Search History – Another data collection method to coincide with Google’s ad service.
6. YouTube Watch History – collects the data for videos you have watched.
Pause these controls at your discretion.
Microsoft users can view their privacy by going to https://account.microsoft.com/privacy/
The next insight is considering the application permissions available on mobiles devices. Most downloaded apps are granted permission to have access to many other applications on your mobile device. For instance, Facebook app permissions include calendar, camera, contacts, microphone, phone, SMS, storage, and location. So if you are using Google for your Android device and frequently check in via geolocation, then you are providing your location to Facebook and Google. Facebook too, if permitted, would have access to all of the above applications on a mobile device if you allow them to do so. It would be recommended to look at each application on your mobile device to determine what apps have permission to view other apps.
To check app permissions on an android device: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/6270602?hl=en
To check app permissions on an IOS device: https://www.howtogeek.com/211623/how-to-manage-app-permissions-on-your-iphone-or-ipad/
To check app permissions on a Microsoft device: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/10557/windows-10-app-permissions
Steven Lahullier wrote an exceptional article on Tech & Learning that showcases the top ten K-12 educational technology trends. Mobiles devices landed at number 2, while IoT fell at number 7. Both are prime examples of how educational technology accounts can be linked with personal accounts, while all the data associated with both accounts are utilized to generate revenue for businesses and provide information for cybercriminals (2017). However, using the above recommendation can help prevent such occurrences.
For more information on student privacy, visit the following websites:
Although these recommendations are directed towards protecting student data, they certainly can be applied to protecting personal data.
Lahullier, S. (2017). Top 10 -12 educational technology trends. Tech & Learning. 39(4).
Using the General Social Survey dataset, last week I discovered using dummy variables that union members hold higher degrees and more income compared to nonunion members. To expand on that research, I am using a Chi Squares test to examine the relationship between the two variables; respondents’ highest degree (dependent variable) and Does respondent or spouse belong to a union (independent variable). Since both variables are measured as categorical, the Chi-Square test will provide additional insights into the relationship (Frankfurt-Nachmias & Leon-Guerrero, 2018).
The results show a p-value of .007, significantly less than the threshold of .05, indicating the rejection of the null hypothesis that union members do not hold higher degrees than nonunion members. Since the Chi-Square test does not reveal the significance of the statistically significant relationship, a Cramer’s V test is used, which results in a value of .074. The Cramer V relationship is between 0 and 1.0, with 1.0 being a strong relationship; thus, in this example, the value of .074 shows a weak relationship between education levels and unionized labor. However, even though the relationship is weak, the dataset does show a statistically significant relationship and therefore, we can assume unionized members earn higher degrees than nonunion members.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Leon-Guerrero, A. (2018). Social statistics for a diverse society (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2016). Bivariate categorical tests [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author. span>
Do Americans have a higher Socioeconomic Status (SES) and education level when belonging to a union?
I created 3 dummy variables for the independent variable, “Does R (respondent) or spouse belong to a union” using the High School Longitudinal Study dataset. My reference variable assumes that neither the respondent or spouse belong to a union. Further, the model summary indicates 34% of SES values are affected by the independent variables and the ANOVA test reveals a significance level of .000, well below the conventional threshold of .05, indicating unions do influence SES and education levels (Laureate, 2016).
In examining the coefficients, SPSS reveals when comparing SES against married couples who are not in the union, SES increases 2.5 – 2.8 units when one spouse belongs to the union, 2.2 units when both spouses belong to the union. Therefore, when comparing respondents, spouses, or married couples within a union, SES increases and so does their higher education level by 4.245 years.
Diagnostics reveals a Durban Watson value of 1.75 and ANOVA value of .008. Further, the collinearity VIF values for each dummy variable are well below 10 at just above 1.0. Lastly, Cooks Distance values are well below 1.0 and do not have undue influence (Laureate, 2.16m).
Laureate Education (Producer). (2016m). Regression diagnostics and model evaluation [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2016). Dummy variables [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
The purpose of this multiple regression test is to examine whether math teachers’ perceptions of collective responsibility and principal support, the independent variables measured as interval-ratio, affect math teacher self-efficacy, the dependent variable measured as interval-ratio. Each variable data was taken from the High School Longitudinal Study dataset (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2009). Since I am using two independent variables to examine how it affects one dependent variable, multiple regression serves as the best model to complete such task (Frankfort-Nachmias & Leon-Guerrero, 2018). Nonetheless, the multiple regression test reveals a statistically significant relationship between the two independent variables and the dependent variable.
Model and ANOVA
The model summary reveals an R-value of .21, indicating the Pearson Correlation Coefficient is a slight positive correlation between math teachers’ perceptions of principal support and collective responsibility against math teaching self-efficacy. Also, the Adjusted R Square value of .45, indicates 45% of math teachers’ self-efficacy is affected by their perceptions of principal support and collective responsibility (Laureate Education, 2016).
The ANOVA test reveals an F value of 331.63 at a significance of .000, well below the conventional .05 alpha level, therefore, rejecting the null that math teachers’ self-efficacy is not affected by their perceptions of principal support and collective responsibility.
The Unstandardized Coefficients Beta value for math teacher’s perceptions of principal support is .062, meaning for one unit increase in perceptions of principal support, math teacher’s self-efficacy will increase by .062. A one unit increase in math teacher’s perceptions of collective responsibility, math teacher’s self-efficacy will increase by .165. Lastly, the significance of each independent variable is .000, indicating a rejection of the null that there is no relationship between teacher’s perceptions of principal support and collective responsibility against math teacher’s self-efficacy (Laureate Education, 2016). Therefore, we can conclude that teacher perceptions of principal support and collective responsibility do affect their ability to deliver effective instruction.
SPSS was used to analyze the data from the 2014 General Social Survey data set which reveals both hours watching TV and time spent on the internet during the week affect your socioeconomic status.
The Model Summary of the Multiple Linear Regression tests reveals that 40% of socioeconomic statuses are explained by the two independent variables; hours spent watching TV and time spent on the internet. The ANOVA test has a significance of .000, below the .05 alpha level indicating the rejection of the null that there is no relationship between variables.
Nonetheless, analyzing the unstandardized coefficients reveals for every unit increase of hours per day watching TV, SES will decrease by 1.668 units. For every unit increase in internet hours per week, SES will increase by .130 units. The significance of each independent variable is statistically significant at the .01 alpha level and are statistically significant predictors of SES. Thus, in laymen terms, the more you watch TV, the less money you will make and the more time you spend on the internet, the more money you will make. However, there are multiple influences that affect hours spent on the internet, some beneficial to income, some not.
The purpose of this bivariate correlation test is to examine whether math teachers’ years of service are correlated with students’ mathematics self-efficacy using the High School Longitudinal study data (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2009). The correlation test is used to determine the level of association between the two variables and the strength of the association (Frankfort-Nachmias & Leon-Guerrero, 2018). The results of the test indicate a p-value of .047, just under the conventional .05 threshold, therefore rejecting the null that there is not a statistically significant relationship between the two variables. Because of the rejection of the null, a linear regression test can be utilized to determine the strength of the relationship.
Linear Regression Test
The Linear Regression test reveals that for every year of experience a math teacher completes, students’ mathematics self-efficacy increases by .2%. Also, The standardized coefficients value is computed at a level of .017, which indicates a very slight positive correlation between the two variables as it is just above 0 (Frankfort-Nachmias & Leon-Guerrero, 2018). Such statistical data can help provide social change for educators across the globe by helping teachers remain in the field of teaching mathematics. Further, such information could entice further research in examining teacher confidence and ability to deliver seamless instruction.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Leon-Guerrero, A. (2018). Social statistics for a diverse society (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009). High school longitudinal study [data file].
The Education Technology market is closing in on $1.9B and most public-school systems are utilizing 1:1 initiatives to bring more tech to the classroom (Molnar, 2017). The whole school process is being digitized from registration to homework and it is time to stop and consider the vulnerabilities that are being created through technology. First, consider the technology used in administration; registration software, Learning Management System, Student Information System, Website, local servers, and office software. In administration alone, schools are subject to over five vulnerabilities to cyber-attacks and all these technologies are generally integrated with each other. Now add the classroom to the mix. Until recently, I've used roughly five to seven 3rd party integrations with office software during a school year. Now we have over ten vulnerabilities on any given school year that is subject to exposing student and teacher information across the internet. That information could be addresses, social security numbers, grades, assignments, health records, contact information, and online communication.
It doesn't stop there, how many folks have taken the time to research each EdTech company to verify their stance on privacy or security? How many of us actually read the Terms and Agreements? According to Jonathan Obar, 98% of us don’t read those terms and agreements before signing up. In his study, people actually agreed to sharing their private information with the NSA and surrendering their first-born child as payment to have access to technology, the conditions were found in the Terms and Agreements (Vedantam, 2016).
Now you might be a little relieved to find out that both Microsoft and Google have pledged to protect student privacy; however, Google is currently being sued by the state of Mississippi for their current and past notorious bouts with utilizing student data to drive their ad service - this is how they combat their free service with some revenue. This will be a later conversation, but when companies market their free service, it generally isn't free.
Tips before Signing Up
Tools for Protecting Student Privacy
Consider allowing students to turn on in private browsing through the internet browser and ask that they clear the history before logging off of the computer and at home. Be sure to discuss their digital footprint and how it is utilized in data collection. BrowserSpy is a nice tool to check what your internet browser leaves behind. Look for tools such as Privacy badger to block Ads and prevent advertisers from secretly tracking you (Barack, 2017). Use https://privacy.commonsense.org/ to check out Commen Sense Tech evaluations. Lastly, take the pledge: https://studentprivacypledge.org/.
Our data is continuously being tracked, sold and purchased and it is important for students and schools to know and understand the importance of privacy. Carelessness could result in significant problems for students in the future.
Barack, L. (2017). The Problem with Student Privacy, and How to Protect It. Retrieved from: http://www.slj.com/2017/01/technology/the-problem-with-student-privacy-and-how-to-protect-it/
Molnar, M. (2017). K-12 Ed-Tech Platform and Tools Market Value to Increase to $1.83 Billion by 2020, Report Says. Retrieved from: https://marketbrief.edweek.org/marketplace-k-12/k-12-ed-tech-platform-tools-market-value-increase-1-83-billion-2020-report-says/
Vedantam, S. (2016). Do You Read Terms Of Service Contracts? Not Many Do, Research Shows. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/2016/08/23/491024846/do-you-read-terms-of-service-contracts-not-many-do-research-shows
Originally posted: https://elearningindustry.com/educational-technology-and-authentic-learning
Educational technology plays a significant role in designing and developing authentic learning. Its role is not only to provide instruction effectively and efficiently but more importantly, to provide students with an experience they otherwise wouldn't have.
Educational Technology And Authentic Learning: The Significant Role Of EdTech In Authentic Learning Development
Hopefully you have read Designing Instruction For Authentic Learning and Developing Content For Authentic Learning as I will refer to these articles below. This article is meant to open conversations regarding models for effective technology integration.
We have discussed Authentic Learning which is a strategy found under Deeper Learning, its goal is to provide students with critical thinking, problem solving, creativity, and collaboration skills. Research shows that through Deeper Learning Approaches students raise test scores, have higher graduation rates, and are more likely to enroll in post-secondary schooling - including trade schools (American Institute of Research, 2016). The data proves that Authentic Learning works and through my previous two articles you should have gained an excellent foundation for designing and developing your course using Authentic Learning – plus check out New Media Horizon Reports for K12 and Higher Ed; you’ll notice Deeper Learning is listed in both. Now it is time to focus on the role of Educational Technology.
The Role Of Educational Technology
Educational Technology should be used to provide students with an experience they otherwise wouldn’t have. Chris Dede, a Harvard University Learning Technologies Professor, argues that “technology as a catalyst is effective only when used to enable learning with richer content, more powerful pedagogy, more valid assessments, and links between in- and out-of-classroom learning” (2014, p. 6). Additionally, we must acknowledge that there is an achievement gap which looks something like a bell curve and that the digital divide is a real thing – consider the digital divide when providing experiences.
We also should acknowledge that educational technology complements our design and development and technology alone cannot create learning experiences. Teaching as a human craft is what makes learning effective, not the technology. We certainly do not want something called digital drill and kill by digitizing teacher-centered instruction (Murray, 2017). On the contrary, we want students to apply the knowledge gained by using technology to do better things rather than do things better (Dede, 2017).
Tips For Integrating Technology And Personalizing Learning
We first need to correlate the technology with our unit and course objectives. If we have our students analyzing literature, then the objective should read the same; analyze literature. We could look at the SAMR Model of technology integration, but I think the model alone limits our objective in providing students with Authentic Learning experiences; however, it is a step in the right direction. Remember, we don’t simply want to digitize business! Again, it is providing students with an experience they otherwise wouldn’t have.
Second, look at Gartner’s Hype Cycle and New Media Horizon Reports to determine what technologies are becoming of age, reaching their plateau, or are on the rise because these technologies are going to be embedded in the real world (note there are a few different industries for the Horizon Report and an education version of the Hype Cycle).
Third, remember that instruction is guided and we control rigor based on guidance of each student, therefore, instruction is personalized as each student needs different guidance. Look at the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) designed by Lev Vygotsky for more information on guidance and personalized learning. Lastly, use technology in every facet of instruction, it can certainly make the delivery of instruction and feedback more efficient with Learning Management Systems and video production. Take this example in public education, I hate taking attendance and writing it down on paper, it wastes time. Instead, use Kipin Attendance through Canvas (LMS) where students have five minutes into the class to record their attendance, this way I didn’t have to call out names or mark each student’s attendance digitally. It knocked off three minutes of wasted time per class – 180 days X 3 equates to 540 minutes or roughly 2.5 weeks of instruction devoted to attendance!
Nonetheless, we say we want students to do better things through their summative assessment. That doesn’t mean we can’t make other facets of instruction more efficient. Remember the questionable rule that if you feel you need to directly instruct, then create a video. It is still direct instruction but hopefully students complete it at home.
There Really Isn’t An Effective Model – That’s The Problem
The SAMR Model certainly gets educators going in the right direction and creates good conversations. It is even better when utilized with the Bloom’s Taxonomy as we attempt to match assessments with objectives. TPACK makes great arguments that this article coincides. Integrating these 3 models is another great start towards an effective model. What we do know is every facet of teaching should integrate technology, but the assessments should require collaboration, critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration through Authentic Learning.
Do you know a model for effective technology integration? If so, share with us your model or how you integrate technology.