Content uploaded by Joshua Devors
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joshua Devors on Nov 01, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Distance Education for Career and Technical Degrees:
Modern Course Methodologies to Progress
Shareable Course Content Discoverability, Usability, and Worth
_______________________________________
A Research Investigation
Presented to
Dr. McCaskey
Adult and Career Education
Indiana State University
Terre Haute, Indiana
_______________________________________
In Fulfillment
of the requirement for
CTE-603-301
_______________________________________
By
Joshua D. DeVors
April 25, 2016
1
Chapter 1: THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
Introduction
With today’s technology there exists an incomprehensible amount of pedagogical open-
source distance education content online. This considerable amount of educational material
includes test modules, video lessons, links, and less developed interactive software. All of this
can be found everywhere on the internet for educators to share. There have been many
government funded consortia to get this shareable data online with educators basically taking on
the duty of publishers and course developers. This action is an attempt to cut costs since
publisher materials require licensing for use online which is usually expensive. The available
funding offered often requires course developers to create a whole course using strictly creative
commons, licensed materials to avoid copyright issues. These available materials have been
developed over the last decade and seem to be raw in delivery and are often not well-suited to be
pieced together when creating updated or brand new courses.
With this inconsistency of available materials, the intelligible integration of it into
complete distance courses is an impractical effort by educators. The accumulated metadata by
previous efforts has led to an immense pool of available educational data, thus leaving educators
to rummage when trying to create their own course modules while adhering to on-campus course
requirements. To target a particular area, technology metadata alone has a very broad scope,
which stretches from automotive technology to wind power fundamentals. There exist many
thousands of lecture and demonstration videos, each having little means of transition when
creating courses.
2
General Statement of the Problem
One identifiable problem with all of this open source shareable content is the lack of a
well-developed categorization method to make available content more discoverable. Sorting
through the mess the internet has to offer is not a new problem. Search engines are constantly
being updated in effort to keep ordinary online content discoverable and shareable course content
should not be in contrast to this. Content discoverability is vital as it seems to work in a loop
with modularity. As an example, someone in academia is creating a complete online technology
course and they need shareable content for their modules. After laying out what he or she would
like to cover based on course requirements, the search for modular content is attempted. If the
course is a common technology course, like an electronics-based course, the amount of metadata
to comb through will be substantial.
This problem keeps appropriate content undiscovered, making courses dry and splotchy
in delivery to students. It is a real challenge to keep course modules modular when the shareable
content found is often too specific, broad, or even tangential. Colleges abroad know that full
courses offered online using strictly shareable content have flimsy validity and undesired
efficacy, especially in content delivery. Should consortia continually seek alternatives to
complete, but costly, publisher materials; an actively updated repository of module content is
required. These have been developed and have been dubbed online eLearning repositories, or
OERs. Use of an OER has its impediments when searching for shareable technical education
content. Oftentimes, just searching for the appropriate OER is troublesome. Most online courses
are organized into modules.
3
Statement of the Hypothesis
I seek to answer what the most effective means of creating a module to increase
discoverability by OERs. The discovery focus specifically pertains to hands-on demonstration
content development, the considering of its modularity in development, how to improve its
discoverability for others, as well as fine tuning its modularity and structure to make it more
searchable. The developed distance education model for better modularity will be added as an
appendix to the research. Further review, tables, figures and required adjustments are the result
of the investigation and will be geared towards technology e-learning curriculum and these types
of course materials.
Summary of Investigation Purpose
The most effective means of creating a module to increase discoverability with a focus on:
o Hands-on demonstration content development
o Modularity considerations during development
o Improving discoverability for other users
o Fine tuning modularity to make it more searchable
4
The Definition of Terms
CC-BY – Creative Commons (CC) license is used when an author wants to give people the right
to share and build upon a work that they have created.
Chaos theory – The branch of mathematics that deals with complex systems so sensitive to slight
changes that small alterations can cause extreme consequences.
cMOOC – “Connectivist Massive Object Oriented Content.” Unlike single-instructor courses
cMOOCs involve people learning together on platforms such as blogs and social media.
CMS/E-learning platforms – “Content Management System.” Free open source software
packages designed to help educators create effective online courses.
Connectivist theory – Emphasizes technology's effect on how people learn. Asserts importance
of connections to others (within a class, organization, or the internet) and states that their social
and cultural diversity helps facilitate continual learning.
Discoverability – Refers to the measure of ease or difficulty in a user being able to find the
content via a search engine.
Metadata – Any set of data that describes and gives information about other data.
Modularity – The degree to which content components may be separated and recombined to
serve another purpose.
MOOC – “Massive Open Online Course.” Free web-based distance learning courses aimed at
large-scale amounts of participation.
5
Object-oriented – The ability of data or content (objects) to be exchanged or combined in a
standardized manner with other modules or blocks of data.
Open source – Software and content for which the original source is made freely available,
redistributed, and free to be modified and built upon by others.
SCORM – “Shareable Content Object Reference Model” is a collection of standards for defining
reusable learning objects and behavior for web-based educational technology.
Shareable content – Content which can be shared.
Share-ability – The extent to which information can be shared between individuals without loss.
Usability – The quantifiable quality of how easy user interfaces are to use can be judged.
Usability also refers to content in how easy it may be adapted for another topic.
xMOOC – MOOCs with traditional university framework. Aims to broaden the number of
students to be exposed to university-level courses but significantly limits the interaction. Based
on the edX system, which was created and used by leading institutions, namely MIT, Harvard,
and Berkeley
6
Chapter 2: A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Overview
Introduction
Scholarly articles and textbooks were be considered for this research, namely
articles from the Interactive Learning Environments Journal, The Journal of Interactive
Media in Education as a teaching tool reference, Web-based instruction publications
covering effective means of course delivery, and the Online Journal of Distance
Education for online content modularity techniques.
Keywords and Phrases: Connectivist approach, Discoverability, E-learning,
Hybridization, Modularity, MOOCs, Online technology education strategies, Open
source content, Shareable content, and Standardization.
Review of Literature
Scanlon’s work focuses on learning analytics. Discussions on the measurement and
collection of data about learners and their contexts as applied to MOOCs are explained. Others’
strategies and efforts regarding making sense of all of this pedagogical data is large focus for this
article. “This activity recognizes the need for and importance of human sense-making to turn
data into “something which is actionable.” The creation and use of educational resources,
learning design considerations, learning analytics, as they pertain to Open University (OU)
MOOC content, are presented within this article. This research suggests that design
considerations during development may help to integrate the process of learning and the data can
be used to interpret how well those designs are working. Motivational factors of the learner, the
7
direction the course takes, and indicators for success in learning are also questioned in terms of
both instruction and technology. The development of conventional OU online courses and
MOOCs are given and both are compared. The necessity for modularity is also a strategy of this
model. The importance and aspects of self-regulated learning, the value in technology, course
satisfaction, and overall achievement were all points of interest within this 2013 study by Wang,
et al., on over 250 students. Data amassed during this, created survey-based recommendations
for instructors to maximize learning and engagement by having them consider student values and
previous experiences with online learning. Chandler’s article describes the design and evaluation
of a blended (hybrid) course completed by more than 6000 U.S. learners. This study suggests
that having hands-on activities in-class periodically during an online course show significant
improvements in the knowledge and understanding of the course material. The study suggests, to
a certain degree, that some courses would be best-suited to have both online and on-campus
hybridity. Considering this survey, suggestions for blended course design are discussed. The
fallacy of having strictly online course delivery and the ramifications due to inadequate
mechanisms for communication are also presented. DeWaard, et al, uncovers how the MOOC
format developed, self-organization, connectedness, complexity, and the resulting chaos, which
requires order to it all. The identification of the problem and the need for MOOC organization
and what is learned by taking a look at contributing factors of this chaotic data is covered. Recent
developments and other unforeseen emerging phenomena, as well as the scope, of MOOC are
presented with survey-based recommendations as to the organization of this chaotic amount of e-
learning Metadata. The article by Kop, et al., makes an effort to explain how, through instructor-
student collaboration and creation of resources, the abundance of this e-learning metadata can be
sorted into what can be discoverable and viable. Clara’s work covers the connective MOOCs
8
concept and explains its inadequacies. The writers suggest that, through cultural psychology,
explanatory challenges that web 2.0 courses can be rectified. The assumptions of e-learning, as it
pertains to the Web 2.0 environment as practiced in theory, are also explained. The article by
Rogerson-Revell, et al., draws together the current development in e-learning. Hybridization,
modularity, standardization, and integration are discussed as it pertains to language education
and can be developed for other areas of study. SCORM standards and other open course
standardization practices are covered. Adaptive learning, collaboration tools, curriculum
development guides, the divide in digital education, e-learning definitions, game-based learning,
hybrid courses, instructional design considerations, the effects of social media on education, and
Web 2.0 practices in education are covered within this Thomas’s textbook and were used for
reference. Ehlers offers introductory background topics on e-learning are offered within this text.
Methods, models, concepts, and approaches for the development, management, and quality in e-
learning are offered at an introductory level. First the theoretical model is offered in detail, then
proper implementation and expected challenges in to doing so are offered. The latter portion of
the text focuses on standardization practices of e-learning material, which is invaluable to
increasing modularity of materials for use in the future by other developers by way of reusability
techniques. Also included are various case studies, some are from abroad, and they are regarding
e-learning, its development and its organization. Andrews’ text dives into the development and
developmental philosophies in the field of learning networks. The digital divide and e-learning
concepts are explained. An interesting analogy between the necessity of peer collaboration in
modern digital gameplay in order to achieve and how this quality may be utilized in online
education is discussed in great detail. The theories and implication of those theories are covered
with a briefing on subjects such as e-learning community design practices, online professional
9
development for instructors, and the place of digital videos in online curriculum. Open source
products’ tools, technologies, weaknesses, strengths, and basic framework are offered up front
within Chao’s text. Instructional technology theory considerations are also covered within it.
Method of Investigation
In order to effectively address these problems in electronically delivered pedagogy, a
look at the history, structures, trends, critiques, reports, studies, and standards were carefully
searched and considered. These materials were then formed into a qualitative research
investigation on the subject of discoverability and modularity of content. Supplementary
methodologies and updates as they pertain to tech education are given as a briefing in the
appendix of the work.
10
Chapter 3: FINDINGS
Distance learning began with the correspondence of materials based on printing
technology. Then the multimedia model came about and was based on printing, audio, video
technologies. After this, the tele-learning model was identified and providing synchronous
communication online with distance education being the current step to this pedagogical
revolution. (Hosie, 2005)
Table 3-1: Definitions of Online Units (Hosie, 2005, p. 885)
Mode
Definition
Mode A –
Web Supplemented
Participation online is an option for students. Access to online material is offered, but as
supplement to course materials.
Mode B –
Web Dependent
Participation online for each activity described in (1), (2), or (3) below is a compulsory
requirement of participation although some face-to-face component is retained
(1) Students must use the web to interact with the education content necessary for study.
(2) Students must use the web to communicate with staff and/or other students.
(3) Students must use the web to interact with content and to communicate with staff
and/or other students.
Mode C –
Fully Online
There is no face-to-face component. All interactions with staff and students, education
content, learning activities, assessment, and support services are integrated and delivered
online.
The types of e-learning are web enhanced or web facilitated, blended or hybrid, fully online or
all online. (Thomas, 2014, p.61) Basic definitions of online units and the driven forces behind e-
learning are highlighted in tables 3-1 and 3-2.
11
Table 3-2: E-learning driven forces (Andrews, 2007, p. 43)
Integration, modularity, standardization, usability, accessibility, and interactivity were all
identified as key components to the success of e-learning. (Rogerson-Revell, 2007). Basic
definitions of these terms are giving below and will the basis for further investigation.
Learning platforms on integrating tools and various plugins which can be found in the
open source market to some extent. These plugins increase functionality of developed content
and should be considered as a key component to integration.
Importantly, authoring e-learning materials are having more modularity. A large amount
of attention is paid to making smaller, more focused modules, rather than larger, lessons or
courses. This smaller unnecessary packaging leads to greater reuse, less duplication, and
redundancies. There are many sites having uploaded content where efficiency and effectiveness
are concerns. Especially, since materials overlap, are disconnected, or are incongruent in
12
material coverage when reassembled for other courses or lessons. Some material is lost by
standards and mismanagement. This is applied in the appendix with the capacitor as the subject.
A solution to this problem is adopting the object-oriented approach to creating reusable
objects. Small units of instructional material should be added and center on one main focus
specific to the learning object and is part of the standard. (Rogerson-Revell, 2007, p. 58-63) This
work supports SCORM as a standard and is stated as being a move towards greater
standardization and interoperability. If standards are followed, flexibility would be enhanced;
especially if adopted within the CMS environment. This would enable seamless share-ability
between campuses worldwide. There are efforts put in place to standardize objects. However,
most efforts are to standardize learning technology and not pedagogical standards.
“It is suggested that even though these metadata standards are to
provide ways of locating objects and linking them like pieces of a
jigsaw puzzle, there is no guarantee that the resultant puzzle
instructional sense.” (Rogerson-Revell, 2007, p. 62)
Making standards to limit these materials in effort to make them more flexible does limit
creativity and scope of authoring, but there is a growing need for standards in usability, share-
ability, and accessibility.
Usability means the ability of materials or objects to be used by others to fit cognitive
needs. Usability and accessibility is crucial for these types of shareable learning materials.
Teacher-created materials usually have little usability due to too broad of materials covered in
the object design. Conversely, materials by professionally made software are often high in
usability, but are usually out of synch with curriculum the instructor needs. Usability has been
13
viewed as part design skill and these design considerations are often not an important issue with
many material developers. Simple user-friendly interfaces are important for distance learners
who lack face-to-face interactions. This should be done without ignoring the full potential of
design capabilities. Users need clear, uncluttered, yet sophisticated design interfaces. The use of
sitemaps helps to show what the site’s structure is and how each bit of content is place and
navigated.
In e-learning accessibility refers to the availability of leaning assets, such as interfaces,
resources, and infrastructure regardless of disability. Accessibility concerns are not always
considered when designing materials, but options are worth looking into, especially with laws
and standards influencing the design. Some sites are linking materials and are helping to convert
and run content in disability modes in the form of multimedia add-ons. (Rogerson-Revell, 2007,
p. 66)
This form of learning implores designers to include well-developed discussions and
activities for students to interact with as shown in previous works and studies and divides into
two interactivity sub categories. Material interaction is one and social interaction is the other.
(Rogerson-Revell, 2007, p. 67) Current generations of e-learning tools are capable of media
delivered task-based activities where feedback greatly enhances learning experience. When used
efficiently to their potential, interactive content can increase learner experience and motivation.
Social interaction: In addition to material-driven interactions, and feedback upon them, it
is known that chat groups, social media, and other mediums for social interaction are beneficial
to students and most are free for them to use. This allows students to study and engage in real-
life structures and interact as they would to solve these problems in the technology workforce.
14
Virtual field trips that facilitate task-based learning by way of inquiry based activities are to be
considered. Chat sites such as Active Worlds, among others, can greatly enhance student
learning. This is enhanced when students perform activities together at the same time.
(Rogerson-Revell, 2007)
Looking at the convergence of learning and technology we see new learning as
personalized, learner-centered, situated, collaborative, ubiquitous and lifelong, with the
technology being personal, user-centered, mobile, networked, ubiquitous and durable. According
to Andrews (2007), this reinforces the fact that learning in accomplished through conversation
where learners negotiate differences and build their own interpretations through it. A figure is
built to highlight the conversational framework that is seen when learning through technology.
For learning to succeed, the student must attain the structure of the debate, understand what is
being presented or what is represented, do something with the material in the real world, adjust
actions to conform with task goals, modify any and all previous descriptors to adhere to the topic
at hand, reflect on the goal, the actions taken to accomplish the goal, and the feedback attained
and given during these steps. Being that learning is achieved by conversation, the role of teacher
is not to just disseminate information. Rather, they are another participant in a continual
conversation. See table 3-1 regarding the conversational framework developed by Andrews
(2007).
15
Figure 3-1: Conversational framework within e-learning technology (Andrews., 2007, p.228)
The foundation of learning has been is peripheral based and situational, thus learning
environments must be to some extent social and interactive in nature. This necessity for a
‘community of practice’ seeks consistency by way of shared commitment in a significant
cooperative, thus creating symbiotic interactions which continue by a shared liability stemming
and building up from its creation and use. It is noteworthy that a failure of social tools in online
learning has been seen as problematic. This work supports the need for social tools with e-
learning and how it causes critical thinking. As a caution, there exist failures and frustration with
small course groups since the positive community of practice attributions is lost. (Chandler,
2013, p. 458) With this study, it was found that those who reviewed the course contents were
almost 14 times more apprised to the concepts than someone who did not regardless of their test
performance. This demonstration of those who were better at exhibiting functionality in their
roles indicates that hand-on component are both beneficial and necessary for some subjects in
16
education, especially technology oriented courses. This study’s finding did provide a window
into the knowledge-transfer process from hands-on tasks. (Chandler, 2013, p. 464)
DeWaard (2011, p. 104) also supports the importance of discussions in e-learning as does
multiple other sources and states: Knowledge is not just something that resides within its creation
and transference is social in nature and individuals cannot be trained step-by-step or instruction-
by-instruction the way data storage devices do. There exists a defined human interaction
component to embedding knowledge rather than just attempting to drop it into others’ minds.
These interactions were structured by Roberts (2004) and is adapted in figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2: Conversations of Learning and Technology (Roberts, 2004, p. 35)
With this a feedback system in communication lends to collective scaffolding to be
erected within the mind. This expands student abilities by seeking classmates who exhibit more
knowledge than others on the subject matter and acts around shared expertise. (deWaard, 2011,
p. 105)
The mobiMOOC study developed by deWaard (2011) was decentralized and was only
facilitated rather than being lectured and controlled. The complexities of these systems contain
17
ever-emerging smaller complex systems which grow as information is added, updated, and
deleted to the MOOC. More than ever before, people are learning more from each other through
dialog, which has always been integral to human communication and growth. These are
emergent mobile technologies are reshaping the models of learning originally based on Socratic
delivery. Mobile learning is repetitive, nonlinear, and links prior knowledge. (deWaard, 2011)
These systems which are facilitated allows for some challenges for those involved.
However, Kop (2011) states that this is not problematic, as learners need to have some inner
resilience to make every change encountered looked at as a part of learning and not as a hurdle of
intentional disruption. Getting this accomplished through course design is a challenge but should
be explained to students as an effective way of learning.
Figure 3-3: Model of learning in an open networked environment. (Kop, 2011, p. 77)
Students mostly overcome these ‘hurdles’ by being exposes to positive motivational
factors such as that. The creation of environments which encourage relationships, connections
on an at least a somewhat emotional level are related to student success. The flow of this open
18
learning network of discussion was shown in figure 3-3. Steps in seeking information is shown in
this ‘Kolb learning cycle,’ where the learner has an experience or thought and would like to
know more by getting involved in activities that explore the subject. The learner then aggregates
the information, creates activities regarding the knowledge sought, and may discuss it with
others as a part of collaboration. Links and correlations are made from previous experiences and
learned material in effort to build an artifact of the subject for use in future learning cycles. This
model puts high value on the encouragement and support for a safe learning environment as does
earlier work by Cole (2000). The online delivery of content has a potential to be very interactive.
One of the oldest models of teaching is the Socratic Method where students are encouraged to
participate in conversations by way of instructor questions. Within the class some students may
eagerly participate in the conversations whilst others sit back and passively absorb what others
are discussing. This does make it difficult for teachers to evaluate the validity of papers
regarding this topic sense other students likely didn’t absorb much of the conversation. This
problem is amplified when dealing with online content that does not allow or keep track of
discussions relating to the subject matter. (Cole, 2000, p.382) Thus it should be understood that
content online requires interaction among students and should also be set up to ensure and
evaluate student discussions. (Cole, 2000, p. 381-383)
Another focus of this research investigation hovers around the idea of open source
content, which also must include the platforms used. Chao (2009) discusses these systems and
the findings are discussed in the table 3-3. Program-based education considerations and roles of
open source technology in online teaching - open source software is involved in many sections of
online teaching structure.
19
Table 3-3: Software and Platform Details. Adapted from Chao (2009) text.
Linux -
This open source software is constantly upgraded by people worldwide and is supported by numerous
IT companies. Computers using this OS have more security with this software and can easily run on
older, cheaper PCs and laptops. Linux can be a great tool for tech-based online courses based around
programming, networking, system administration, and Internet computing.
Java -
This is an open source programming language that was generated to read and process data on the World
Wide Web. Java is currently platform free, secure, and versatile.
Java has both programming language and application development capabilities which can be used to
create moving graphics, such as a GIF, for lessons. This perhaps is to cover a particular technology or
device operation. This is an open source programming language that was generated to read and process
data on the World Wide Web. Java is currently platform free, secure, and versatile.
Java has both programming language and application development capabilities which can be used to
create moving graphics, such as a GIF, for lessons. This perhaps is to cover a particular technology or
device operation.
SQL
(MySQL)
-
This database engine was created to support database management along with web related tasks. This is
licensed under a General Public License. It can be used to backup data and store student information.
Moodle -
This learning management system (LMS) was developed to manage the vast amount of online learning
data and e-learning activities. Moodle stands for modular object-oriented dynamic learning
environment. Moodle can be used to schedule course web site management such as activity modules,
quizzes, and grades. It supports forums and chat rooms. Moodle supports tools for developing and
managing course content. It supports remote access tools to students. In addition to this, analyzing tools,
which check teaching efficiency and student performance, are built in.
20
There are some ups and downs with using open source software. Open source software is
available for others to improve upon or even make suggestions. Every user is a developer making
the effort vast, but not necessarily organized. The software is an effort put together by
researchers in higher education seeking free options to courseware for their course development.
There is less marketing effort and less user manuals. Materials must be pieced together by those
available and knowledgeable. There are no experienced developer groups working on your
behalf as there is no real funding or revenue pouring into each and every required task. (Chao,
2009)
Rogerson-Revell (2007) states that the most widely used platforms are Blackboard and
WebCT and cheaper but effective alternatives exist such as Manila and Etudes. The increasingly
popular CMS platforms are Moodle, and many other full open-source platforms such as NTER,
eFront, and ILIA are being used as well. It is as an unfortunate note that fully open source object
sharing technology has made it easy to upload content, often without considering pedagogical
requirements of good teaching (Rogerson-Revell, 2007, p. 61)
Building technology courses online is often discouraging to instructors and contetnt
creators. There is much support regarding hands-on demonstration through hybrid delivery
formats and tools, as well. Inclusion of multimedia is a vital component and audio-video
streaming has really enhanced this. It is suggested that some videos be formatted for DVD or
download so students with limited bandwidths can view them. (Rogerson-Revell, 2007, p. 61-
62) One of the better approaches is to create a hybrid course as proposed by Chandler (2013).
In higher education, the increase of hybrid courses has been seen and noted as being created for
industry-based courses.
21
The current directions in e-learning methodologies, tools, concepts, and technologies
include dedicated open-ware e-learning platforms, hybrid delivery formats, integration,
modularity and reusability, standardizations, usability, accessibility, interactivity, materials
interaction, and social interaction as encouraged by Rogerson-Revell (2007) earlier in this
document. Regarding hybrid content design (Chao, 2009, p. 35) indicates some requirements
worth considering when creating online content. They include lecture notes, hands-on
demonstration materials, lab activity manuals, online help, collaborative operations, class syllabi,
lab regulations, movies, games, instruction on security enforcement.
Skills are often slide based, relying on information dispensed concept-to-concept in a
linear manner. Because of this concept-to-concept delivery method, learners have trouble
relating material to real world situations. Software for simulation does cost and is not shareable.
With that downloaded content, face-to-face training sessions and hands-on tasks are required.
This work reports on the distinctions between online and hands-on learning and reports findings
on both virtual and face-to-face elements. This work was considered for its value on hands-on
and virtual setting details. Relating to Scanlon (2015), web 2.0 technologies, and the limitations
and costs attributed with them, has resulted in new instruction modalities such as hybridization
of materials.
Assessments of these courses should be based on the regression model to examine the
correlation between measures to predict an outcome. The online portion of the hybrid course
should be considered as the assessment and the on-campus portion should be considered as a
measurement of the effectiveness of the online portion. In essence, within a hybrid course, the
setup should allow for the student to be evaluated in the online portion, and the instructor
evaluates his or her own efforts based on student performance on-campus. This hybrid course
22
study was based around the public health workforce but seems to be applicable to technology
courses as well due to the hands-on analyses. The best method of hybrid course design by way
of this study included an outline of some basic chronological steps. Using the fundamentals of
voltage testing as an example, the first was to create a pretest on what is known about voltage
testing from previous experiences. The second would be to offer to the students the procedures
for voltage testing by hands-on demonstration and discussion, followed by a post-test online
covering the in-class activity. Next, the students would come back to demonstrate their
understanding. This demonstration would basically show what was shown to them with a bit of
problem solving involved with it. (Chandler, 2013, p. 457-460)
Stemming from the need for discussions and open source materials online, massive object
oriented content began to build up on the web. (Cole, 2000, p. 149) postulates that this
phenomenon occurred and stems from "post structuralist” theory, which regards learning as an
interpretive, recursive building process created through dynamic learning interactions within the
social world. This huge system of educational materials found en masse is called a MOOC, an
acronym for Massive Open Online Course. This format allows for massive participation and
creation of future education paradigm shifts. “A massive open online course (MOOC) engages
networked learning methods but not within the typical structure of a traditional course” (Kop,
2011, p. 78). This format allows for massive participation and creation of future education
paradigm shifts. Kop (2011) also offers insight on the MOOC concept was developed as a direct
result of the connectivist approach being manifested online. The connectivist approach is based
on three major activities. The first is aggregation where the access of various resources is
accomplished. The second is remixing, where after taking in content the information location is
stored elsewhere online. The third is repurposing the gathered resources and allowing for
23
students to make guided changes to gathered information which should lead them to become
seasoned in understanding, reworking, and criticizing the information found. These works are
then fed forward to other groups to do the same. According to this work by Kop (2011), when
the connectivist approach is going well, there is a large cycle of content and creativity flourishing
within the network and spreading outward to others. The importance of having connection to
outside groups is important. And are often are based on social media groups. Much of the
education use of social media was based around knowledge topic interests, commenting on
others’ positions, discussion on learning experiences, and support for others’ learning
experiences. This addition of social media seemed to create a sense of trust and willingness to
participate, and gave a sense of presence to learners.
There exist some key factors regarding constructivism. One key factor is that learning is
developmental and this is achieved by educators striving to integrate learning experiences which
implement social modes and motivate by forming support systems as seen in previous works on
discussion importance. Another regards the lack of equilibrium which facilitates learning. In
other words mistakes, contradictions, amendments to previous concepts, ambiguity, and creation
of tasks that may seem impossible at first are the best methods of allowing students to learn
when it is guided-through by facilitator discussions, rather than an overseer or foreman-approach
from the former industrial age. To achieve this, instructors must create a bit of mild ambiguous
assignments, discussions, or other materials to implore the student to think critically and have
discussions all while adding only enough guidance as to ensure student motivation while not
sacrificing their critical thinking pathways. The third requires the reflection of ideas where the
environment should be an empty space that is calm and conducive to focus away from other
stimuli. Online interactions with learning activities such as word problems, responses to a
24
problem, or reading tasks are best to reinforce an e-learner’s reflection of ideas. Reassuring
learner confidence and safety makes for a good environment. And, facilitator involvement and
communication to guide the student about online processes helps them to calmly reflect on what
is being learned and less on other challenges. The fourth is similar to others’ work where a
“communication is key” attitude in development encourages more, and better, thinking. With
online courses, it should be left to the students to communicate in effort to defend, prove, and
justify their positions.
Figure 3-4: Core Development (Cole, 2000, p. 168)
Web instructors are left to reallocate the learning by developing interaction formats and
assignments based on them. The last is that learning should proceed towards structures. This is
similar to scaffolding of information within the mind. (Cole, 2000). The core development
stages and social inquiry on the web are shown in figures 3-4 and 3-5 respectively.
25
Figure 3-5: Social Inquiry model of Teaching on the Web (Cole, 2000, p. 169)
The following takes a closer look at the social aspects and role of MOOCs. This is for a
better understanding of the considerations of MOOCs in a mobile environment. The purpose of
this work uses a mobile MOOC or mobiMOOC in effort to understand the role of MOOCs and
Open Education Resources (OERs) which is a focus of this document as most open source online
content falls into this definition. DeWaard (2011) explains that the freedom of MOOC has been
observed to add to self-organization, flow of information, interconnectedness, and collective
emergence. Collective emergence is an increase in overall related material allowing for
cancellation of similar material. It is known that small changes to MOOCs when they require
updates can cause a big problem. This concept is comparable to thermal runaway in integrated
electronic devices, where a large change in temperature in one micron square area due to a short
circuit causes a mass flow of thermal destruction elsewhere by creating short circuits to
26
neighboring conductors which causes more destruction. The whole model is held up and
dependent upon its structure. Any changes to one part of the open source content spells disaster
for multiple other materials and courses based upon it. Thus MOOCs can be chaotic, but there
are some organizational methods to the chaos. MOOCs do allow for change but it is, for the most
part, a destructive one. The fluidity of MOOCs relates to the connectivist approach theory and
emerged from the very concept. According to some research online content needs to be flexible,
open, uncertain, unpredictable, and even disruptive at times, but it needs to also accept the
transformation process. DeWaard (2011) goes on to say that with connectivism, the learner
begins to learn when concepts are fed into, and out from, a learning group. The ability to learn is
based upon taking what is required for learning a particular subject, then filter out all of the
unnecessary information about it. These modern ideas are in stark contrast to the industrial aged
mindset where centralism, establishment, consistency, and autocratic administration were the
focus of education. The construction of the MOOC is very similar to our internal knowledge
compendium. To copy, paste, and save to memory, then repeat and change as required. They
both are ever changing, evolving through the collaboration of others by dialog by text in chat
rooms, blogs, and by word of mouth. Based on the findings of the study dialogue is at the center
of knowledge exchange. (deWaard, 2011, p. 110)
27
Table 3-4. Synchronicity in traditional and online courses (Cole, 2000, p. 61)
Table 3-5. Convergence of learning technology (Cole, 2000, p. 224)
New learning
New technology
Personalized
Learner-centered
Situated
Collaborative
Ubiquitous
Lifelong
Personal
User-centered
Mobile
Networked
Ubiquitous
Durable
Table 3-6: Comparison between Technology and Semiotic Spaces (Cole, 2000, p. 242)
Technological space
Semiotic space
Tool
Mobile phone/PDA
Paintings
Subject
Experienced technology
user
Museum visitor
Control
Usability poor
Social rules: sacred space remains intact and is
violated by technology
Context
Difficult interface, poor
search
No engagement or sharing
Communication
Good communications
facilities; chat
Communication not used
Object
No access to information
Knowledge and skills development inhibited
28
An increasing interest in MOOCs has been noted from several online distance education
communities according to (Clara, 2013, p. 129). The mass spreading of MOOCs over the last
few years has changed their original intended structure. A different terminology of MOOCs has
become necessary and is worth considering for open source technology content. There still
exists the original connectivist approach to MOOCs, but now large institution-based MOOCs
such as ones created by world-leading universities are blurring the environment and concepts,
thus the need for more specific names. The original MOOCs were based on connectivist
principles and are called cMOOCs for connectivist massive object oriented content. The new
‘big brother’ concept of MOOCs are called xMOOCs and are dubbed as such based on the edX,
which was created by leading institutions, MIT, Harvard, and Berkeley.
The characteristics of connectivism and web 2.0 challenges include the rapid rate at
which knowledge is dynamically spreading and the new methods knowledge production and
spreading of knowledge, which increase changes in perspectives. (Clara, 2013, p. 130)
With the MOOC environment it is important for developers to understand not only its
structure, theories, and intention, but also its downside. The resultant chaos of this massive
amount of pedagogical material is best explained by the work of deWaard (2011): It was
Edward Lorenz’s work to the National Academy of Sciences in New York that first brought the
concept of chaos theory with the infamous “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings
in Brazil Set off a Tornado in Texas?” With emerging technologies, education has evolved to e-
learning and the use of social media, mobile tech, and teaching formats are having a major
impact on teaching processes.
29
This chaos theory helps us to understand the complexities and resultant mess of online
materials and metadata we must swim through the mess as mentioned in the work of Ehlers. One
must ask when the system of education is ready to be transformed and the cause and effect of
changes created by system dynamics. To understand these complexities and dynamics as a result
of twenty plus years of pedagogical data being uploaded to the internet, we find a balance in this
new system of education. In these dynamic times there is one system known by scholars which
embraces this complexity. The change from the industrial age model of education evolved over
the past century into what is called the technology age has seen much change in progression due
to the exponential growth of computing capabilities and information creation and uploading
online. Just in the recent decade, media devices have become an important tool in e-learning
since students have them as an accessory. This has made a requirement for proper learning
methodologies and frameworks. This shift has also seen participants form course wiki pages for
their syllabi with all requirements summarized. This, and previously mentioned completely open
source approaches, have transformed the world into an age of learning and self-organization.
The dependency upon this shareable and updatable information makes open source
concepts and standards for fluid share-ability crucial. This open source phenomena continues to
grow with internal diversity, as well as redundancy; with interactions by many and decentralized
control. Redundancy is being defined within the context of excessive duplications in material and
concept coverage. The industrial age method of teaching was a ‘monkey see, monkey do’
methodology. The technology age of teaching is about the creation and share-ability of
knowledge, making it widespread and beyond just the classroom. (deWaard, 2011, p. 99-106)
Location independence, according to the study, was a concern to learners and must be considered
for the proper development of course materials especially since mobile devices are now being
30
used for e-learning. This m-learning allows user to access some information via their mobile
devices. PDFs for lecture notes, YouTube demonstration uploads, social media for reminders and
discussion, and other easy methods of delivery to mobile devices must be considered for best
course development outcomes. With the excess amount of education data, “know how” is being
invalidated by “know where.” The knowledge of where to find more knowledge is getting to be
more important than what is already known (deWaard, 2011, p. 108). This shows the necessity
for proper tagging of materials in order to make it searchable.
(Cole, 2000, p. 147-148) also has text which reinforces the concepts of chaos theory.
There is much diversity in online education materials. Especially when considering the different
course levels, disciplines, structures, quality, quantity, and focus of content. When materials are
shared and blended by instructors, the effectiveness of the course is a concern. There is chaos to
these efforts. It has been said that a problem with the education paradigm is that it has fluctuated
from older industrial-age teaching methodologies, which are invalidated by this modern-age
technological revolution. Industrial-age pedagogy is compared to the hierarchy as seen in a
factory of that era where the students were the workers and teachers were the foremen who
would be constantly overseeing, correcting, and evaluating the behaviors of those workers. This
transition has made it difficult for some older students to achieve post-secondary education goals
since the roles and models of education have changed drastically over the last decade. The
sharing of one's knowledge, the ability to think critically, and problem solving techniques were
uncommon for that era and efforts are being made to rid of this. Through time this problem will
diminish for the most part as new students learn around these systems. Currently, educational
institutions are progressing towards the digital age by purchasing more online content and
sharing information and methods on digital course delivery. Institutions which Segway into the
31
modern digital era are evaluating and retraining existing faculty, hiring new faculty who are
seasoned and well-disciplined in e-learning methodologies, constantly evaluating methods of
online content delivery, focusing on maintaining the 'electronic campus,' and are dedicating time
for the creation of digital libraries. These resources are invaluable as they keep instructors up to
date on current trends in e-course delivery. (Cole, 2000, p. 21-25)
The study by Kop (2011) suggests that online instructors possess new skills in curating,
learning styles, and facilitating. They also possess skills in the organization and selection and
sharing of information and resources, in addition to being moderators and providers, and to an
extent, technical supporters. This has become the role of educators, especially with MOOCs,
which intend to act as an environment where new forms of sharing, storing, tagging, and
retrieving are excelling the development of shared knowledge and create disseminated
knowledge bases. (Kop, 2011, p. 78) This case study also sought to report on such learning
environments and shed light on how participant experienced the support provided and how they
took on supporting roles on their own to a heighten the sense of presence. Recommendations
were given as a part of this research.
(Clara, 2013, p. 131) states “To know means to form a pattern of neuronal associations, which at
the experiential level gives the impression of a representation. The patterns of association can be
highly changeable, and therefore representations which are epiphenomena, are dynamic” Some
problems, in addition, to previously mentioned ones exist with the connectivist approach, such as
how to recognize a pattern if you don’t already know that a specific confusion of connection is a
pattern. Another is that connectivism does not bring discussion concepts to a peak. It does so by
only looking at is as a connection to a node in a network where interaction is an ever-evolving
process and not as simple as just state of already known processes. At first glance the approach is
32
appealing but it does not explain in enough detail the web 2.0 phenomena. Adding to the
connectivist approach, the addition of objects that learners choose to relate to is a better
mediating tool. This required options and dynamic control of the instructor to ensure concepts
take hold by use of analogous shareable content material. With rapid changing and redistribution
of representational materials or objects, a crisis may develop between teachers and learners if
steps are not taken beforehand to avoid erroneous, or redundant concepts. Given that, shareable
content should provide learners and other developers, with visual-aid objects that give direction,
allow for change, and can be transformed rapidly. In other words, visual objects should be
specific enough as too not have a broad scope, making them more adaptable to others’ content
creation efforts. Having discussion on a particular object is a noteworthy choice. This brings
learners together to discuss and relate to a common object. (Clara, 2013)
Some other considerations for technology development are continued in (Scanlon, 2015,
p. 303-318). It is asserted that course outcomes are key to evaluating the overall quality of a e-
learning course. Learning achievement is the most important cognitive variable and the
satisfaction of the course it the most important affective variable. Online learning is different
than the Industrial age method of teaching in that the learner has more freedom and has the
ability to self-regulate in a setting that is physically separate from the mediator or instructor.
Learners in this learning environment are left to decide the duration of time spent on learning
materials, and also when and where to access the information or additional sources. Students are
left to set goals and use various strategies to achieve those goals.
It is noted in others’ works that self-efficacy is key to regulatory processes of e-learners.
Self-efficacy is defined as a learner’s ability to organize and execute the best actions to manage a
given situation. Students with positive self-efficacy in e-learning have been noted as being more
33
motivated and performing better in those courses. (Scanlon, 2015, p. 304) From this, self-
efficacy encouragement, training and e-learning literacy concepts, and methods of reinforcing
student self-efficacy should be included in course design. Especially since students who fear
computer technologies are likely to experience may negative feelings which leads to frustration
and withdrawal. Some sources are in conflict, but it has been noted that self-efficacy does have
an effect on student performance, whether it be seen in the overall grade, or just seen with
satisfaction surveys on the course. As a result of this particular study’s surveys and calculations,
course satisfaction does influence overall grade. However in the same study it was found that
performance does not have much of a positive effect on course satisfaction. A student having
increased levels of motivation is also likely to higher levels of satisfaction and grades. The
results of this study found that students possessing better levels of self-efficacy in general
computing and e-learning platforms are more likely to receive better grades. (Scanlon, 2015, p.
316) The perceived usefulness and ease-of-use for e-learning technologies and content-delivery
heavily affect student attitudes towards the course from the very beginning and influences the
willingness to adopt the technology as the course progresses. The study also shows that positive
attitudes and better self-efficacy can be promoted by the instructors: If lecturers or facilitators
provide an introduction to platforms, discussion boards, check grades, how to upload &
download documents, and the like will help students to become comfortable with the technology
and will increase self-efficacy. Contrary to others’ studies this study found no gender
differences as part of the problem. (Scanlon, 2015, p. 317-318)
Another important aspect of e-learning is the spread of information on social media. A
timeline of social media tools for learning shows how quickly mobile technology progressed in
the last decade in regards to e-learning. This is best discussed by (deWaard, 2011, p. 107):
34
First there was little social media to share knowledge only texts which offered pictures
and reminders. Limited sharing on older web enabled devices began to be possible with some e-
learning platforms a dozen years ago with web 2.0 services. With ever updated web 2.0 services,
open-source applications, and other mobile device changes, free communication through social
media is now amalgamating within the aspects of the connectivist approach. Especially since
social media is central to the MOOCs as it allows the communication and interaction to occur on
a massive scale. Social media combined with mobile-device use has made the physical location
of learners omnipresent in regards to the e-learning classroom. This makes it very fit as an extra
e-learning medium.
A high value on the creation of a place where learners feel comfortable and trust is
established, which encourages discussions, is stated by researchers and allows for a feeling of
presence. Three intertwined form of presence have been identified. They are social presence,
cognitive presence, and teaching presence. Social presence is the engagement and open
discussion among others. Cognitive presence is characterized is achieved by communication and
feedback which culminates ideas. The teacher presence involves designing, facilitating, and
instruction of the course. The teaching presence heightens the cognitive presence of students
within the course through instruction and guidance by facilitation. With these support structures
there are some occasional downfalls. The lack of participants in social media and discussions are
a problem. This is possibly best rectified by running the course after a target number of students
have enrolled, though this is more of an industrial age concept and shies away from some aspects
of collectivism. It is worth noting that it has been found that too much freedom of choice in the
discussion or social media tools will create fragmentation in discussion efforts. Though tools
35
exist to recombine the process to some extent, it is in the best interest to create content that
utilized the least number of social media tools and discussion forums as possible. (Kop, 2011)
The definition of goals is an important aspect of the connectivist approach. Students are
to be left on their own at times, but the goals of the e-learning content must be clearly defined to
prevent students from straying too much from the main focus. Students in different time zones
were also noted as having some trouble in the research.
It was clear that having experience in this type of learning was key to an increased rate of
success for students (Kop, 2011, p. 86).
As explained by Rogerson-REvell (2007) standardization is a requirement for good content
discoverability. The following acts as a basic primer on standards:
Ehlers (2006) tells us that standardization aims to take an unexplored subject having little
rules or chaotic procedures, then arranges the often scattered procedures into steps or into some
well documented and coherent set of procedural objectives, and also leave room for others to
make necessary changes as these subjects or procedures evolve. In order to rid of the chaos it is
necessary to take steps while standardizing to ensure adaptation and amendments in expectation
of future changes or additional, related subjects which have yet to become apparent. Many
groups create standards and the standards are put into place by consensus. Some standardization
bodies seen in technology include the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Learning Technology Standards Committee, the International Standards Organization (ISO) Joint
Technical Committee 1-36, the CEN’s Information Society Standardization System, the
Advanced Distributed Learning Committee of the U.S. Department of Defense, which partners
with the academic area of industries, and the IMS Global Learning Consortium, a sector of
36
academic, information technology, and e-learning. The purpose of these standards focuses on
the unification of relevant terms to increase search-ability, the application of defined procedures,
descriptions of ideal protection processes, quality assurance management, quality criteria of e-
learning products, instrument limitations and methods for reuse of content or elements, and the
promotion for the clarification of e-learning products available on the market. This
standardization of course does not seek to standardize or offer evaluation methods for the content
itself, but the concepts offered do lend to discoverability by considering the rules for products
and terminologies. These standards are geared towards the possible exchanges of e-learning
content through various learning platforms which is considered important to interoperability of
the technologies used. Also these standards help to increase the ability different course works
and didactical concepts to be exchanged efficiently, as seen with the aforementioned
standardization of terms and layout. This being interoperability of information sharing.
When reusing e-learning ‘packages’ from repositories have content based on learner
preferences, learning scenarios, learning objectives, instructional concepts, and cooperation
information on who created it and what expertise they have. To create an efficient usable
package, instructors and content builders need to consider and provide as many options for its
reuse. To consider what other material it may blend into should increase share-ability through
different e-learning platforms. (Ehlers, 2006, p.210) The Shareable Content Object oriented
Reference Model (SCORM) was designed to make e-learning objects interchangeable between
platforms and any Learning Management System (LMS). (Ehlers, 2006, p.215) The standards
for learning object metadata, as highlighted in the IEEE standards, was designed to allow for
search and retrieval of instruction objects. This idea was based around learning resources
metadata and much of it needed to be categorized and organized. This specifies description
37
standards and allows for searchable attributes of materials such as title, author, subject, et cetera.
To enhance the reusability, and thus the modularity of applications, the data profile, or
application profile, is built to reduce mandatory entries for discovery. The International
Standardization Profiles (ISP) has the aim of establishing e-learning standards and
discoverability. Across the pond, the UK Leaning Object Model (LOM) is being adapted from
the U.S. IEEE LOM. There exist multiple other national projects across the globe such as the
Treasury Board of Canada, which are trying to bring congruence to application files and also
seek to standardize metadata in the field e-learning. (Ehlers, 2006, p. 211)
Table 3-7. Shifts Evident in Current Knowledge-sharing Practices (Cole, 2000, p. 454)
From
To
Collecting assets
Connecting people
Technical focus
Social focus
Central content management
Personal content management
Top-down strategies
Bottom-up viral evolutions
Compliance
Enabling
Web 1.0 tools
Web 2.0 tools
Results of Investigation
As a finalization to this work, a list of tables and figures have been adapted and
developed as a result of this qualitative research investigation. These figures and tables have
been reworked with technology curriculum in mind and are offered within the following
appendix to this research.
38
Appendix to Research Investigation
As an example from technology, should one be developing material about a capacitor,
they would seek shareable object materials covering metals, valence electrons, static electricity,
field effect, dielectric, and the like. If content is made modular enough, the material covering
metals should also have partial adaptability to metallurgy, dynamics of metal, and chemistry.
Also, the material covering valence electrons should also have partial adaptability to chemistry
(covalent bonds), conductors in electronics, and current flow in circuit design. The key is to
make the material focused enough that it has adaptability, usability, and discoverability. These
concepts are so interlaced it would take a web plot to correlate the many relationships and
dependencies. Simply put, it seems the simpler the concept, the easier it is to adapt to others’
curriculum.
39
Table A-1: Pedagogies used in quality learning content.
Learning
Description
Examples in Technology
Make tasks
authentic to the
work
environment.
The learning activities
involve tasks that reflect the
way in which the
knowledge will be used in
real life settings.
- “What are problems one comes across
when testing voltage?”
- “In a factory/your factory, where are
voltage tests necessary?”
- “What are all of the aspects of voltage
testing? What are some concerns with
some equipment? What is LOTO?”
Opportunities for
collaboration
Students collaborate to
create products that could
not be produced
individually
- “Students are to discuss the settings of a
voltmeter and how analog meters are
different than digital meters. Which are
better to use for what situation? Give
examples and support.
Performance on this discussion will be
evaluated by your supervisor as well.
You are to keep connected using the
following chat site.”
Learner-centered
environments
There is a focus on student
learning rather than
teaching
- I (the teacher) will be facilitating this
discussion. I will be checking your chats
online and will be ensuring everyone’s
participation. I will only interject to
correct you (the students) if you get too
far off track.
- “You (the student) must ask question
among one another and with the materials
given work the problem together.”
- Activities support and develop students’
metacognitive skills
Engaging
Learning environments and
tasks challenge and
motivate learners
- “This situation was seen in the workplace
and took much collaboration by others to
solve.”
Meaningful
assessments
Authentic and integrated
assessment is used to
evaluate students’
achievements
- “You will only be graded on the
successful completion of activities after
the discussions are made.”
- “There are many resources available to
you online.”
40
Table A-2: Properties in valued learning content.
Learning
Description
Examples
Accessibility
Resources are organized in
ways that make them easily
accessed and located
- Resources are separate from learning tasks
- Intuitive and clear organizational strategies
- Resources are accessible in a non-linear
format
Currency
He age of resources are
appropriate to the subject
matter
- Where possible, resources should be current
and based on regular literature reviews by
lecturer
- Seminal works should not, however, be
removed on the basis of age
Richness
Resources reflect a rich
variety of perspectives
- Resources should represent a variety of
views(including conflicting views) to allow
students the opportunity to assess the merit
of arguments
- Resources provide for a range of
perspectives
- Media is used to enrich data sources
Purposeful use
of the media
Media is suitable for the
purpose intended
- A variety of media is used where
appropriate
- Book-on-screen approach should be
avoided
- Equally elaborate multimedia should be
avoided when a simple diagram would be
suitable
Inclusivity
Materials demonstrate
social, cultural, and gender
inclusivity
- Resources include a variety of cultural
perspectives where possible
- Resources avoid gender and culturally
exclusive terms
- Separation of local and generic content to
facilitate customization and adaption
41
Table A-3: Content Delivery Strategies.
Learning
Description
Examples
Reliable and robust
interface
The materials are accurate and
error free in their operation
- Site is accessed reliably
- Navigation and orientation is
seamless
- Many forms of online support for
learners
Clear goals,
directions, and
learning plans
Unit information and
expectation of student roles are
clear
- Students can find information on
the web site about the unit an its
requirements
Communication
The unit provides opportunities
and encourages dialog between
students and between teachers
and students
- Information and communication
channels are open and inviting for
students
- Students are encouraged to
communicate with the teacher and
other class members
Appropriate
bandwidth demands
The material are accessible
without lengthy delays
- Graphics and other elements
checked for download times
Equity and
accessibility
Unit materials and activities are
accessible and available to all
students
- Web sites are accessible to disable
students
- Course requirements and
resourcing made explicit to
students ahead of the course
- Students are not hampered by
firewalls or geographically
sensitive restrictions
Appropriate
corporate style
Units adopt a corporate style for
web sites to ensure a benchmark
quality of presentation
- Layout and presentation should
incorporate common elements on
the unit homepage reflecting a
corporate style
- The corporate style should
enhance rather than dictate a
pedagogical approach
- Fonts, resolution, etc, should
conform to the corporate style
where possible, but alternatives
should be possible when needed
42
Table A-4: Quality Checklist for E-learning within Technological Curricula.
Never
Sometimes
Always
Pedagogies
Authentic tasks
- The learning activities involve tasks and contexts that reflect the way in which
the knowledge will be used in real life settings
Opportunities for collaboration
- The environment encouraged and requires students to collaborate to create
products that should not be produced individually
Learner-centered environments
- There is a focus on activities that provide degrees of freedom, decision-
making reflection and self-regulation
Engaging
- The learning activities challenge learners and provide some form of
encouragement and motivating to support the engagement
Meaningful assessments
- Authentic and integrated assessment is used to evaluate students’
achievements
Resources
Accessibility
- The resources are organized in ways that make them easily accessed and
located
Currency
- The age of resources are appropriate to the subject matter
Richness
- The resources reflect a rich variety of perspectives
Strong use of the media
- The materials use the various media in appropriate ways
Inclusivity
- The materials demonstrate cultural and gender inclusivity
Delivery strategies
Reliable and robust interface
- The materials are accurate and error free in their operation across all
platforms and browsers
Clear goals, directions and learning plans
- Unit information and expectation of student roles are clear
Appropriate bandwidth demands
- The materials download without lengthy delays
Equity and accessibility
- The unit materials and activities are considerate of students with visual and
physical impairment
Appropriate corporate style
- The materials use a style that is compatible with university policy and
guidelines
43
Table A-5: Checklist for fine-tuning e-learning content within technology degree based courses.
Action
Positive Result
Built on connectivist theory?
Will adapt to the MOOC environment
Is the object content not too broad and shows no
sign of curriculum bias?
Will have modularity.
Addresses Disabilities and Student Access?
Has accessibility.
Is the content objects are focused to one subject?
Will have discoverability.
Does the content object follow SCORM?
Will have interoperability.
(standardization)
The content has evaluations throughout?
Follows proven connectivist theories.
The material is based around discussion on chat
rooms
Follows proven connectivist theories.
The material was created by you, the author, or by
an open source repository?
Will have share-ability.
Follows appropriate standards
Will have interoperability.
Has documents and materials in format easily
downloaded on mobile device.
Has adaptability.
44
Figure A-1: Example of modularity in content
Figure A-2: Example of poor modularity in content
Separated
concepts
(Objects A-D)
Simple and to
the point
Facilitated student
discussions help
reinforce concepts
Material is small
and flows in
small increments
External costly
materials are not
part of the
shareable content
objective
Material is bulky
and too
curriculum
biased.
Concept objects
are not
separated.
Simple and not
to the point
45
Chapter 4: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
Summary of Findings
When considering technology-based course materials, the concept of e-learning are failry
adaptable. Some additions and changes include focusing more on hybrid course development
and real-world scenario delivery strategies. Information was found to help the content adapt to
the MOOC environment. Also finding indicated that there should exist an appropriate focus and
scope to increase modularity. Other topics, discussion and studies pertaining to the investigation
included accessibility, discoverability, interoperability, share-ability, interoperability and
adaptability. Common concerns and other important considerations regarding connectivits
theories and an understanding of the chaos with modern tech age materials such as MOOCs is
invaluable to course developers and users.
Conclusion
In an ever changing world of technology it is necessary to look at all aspects of related
topics to better gage an understanding. This culmination of research materials, studies, texts, and
positions on what is working in e-learning can be adapted to other forms of curriculum such as
technology.
Implications
This material could really be expanded to make much needed standards and regarding the
material interoperability rather than software or platform interoperability, which according to this
research seems to be the main focus of efforts.
46
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andrews, R., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2007) The SAGE Handbook of E-learning Research. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Chandler, T., Park, Y., Morse Levin, K., & Steven, L. (2013) The Incorporation of Hands-on
Tasks in an Online Course: An Analysis of a Blended Learning Environment. Interactive
Learning Environments, 21 (5), 456-468.
Chao, L. (2009) Utilizing Open Source Tools for Online Teaching and Learning. New York,
NY: Information Science Reference IG
Clara, M., & Barbera, E. (2013) Reflection - Learning Online: Massive Open Online Courses
(MOOCs), Connectivism, and Cultural Psychology. Open and Distance Learning Associates of
Australia, Distance Education 34 (1), 129-136.
Cole, R. (2000) Issues in Web-Based Pedagogy: A Critical Primer. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
Ehlers, U. & Martin Pawlowski, J. (2006) Handbook on Quality and Standardization in E-
Learning. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Hosie, P. & Schibeci, R. (2005) Checklist and Context-bound Evaluations of Online Learning in
Higher Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (5), 881-895.
DeWaard, I., Abajian, S., Gallagher, M., Hogue, R., Keskin, N., Kourtopoulos, A., & Rodriquez,
O. (2011) Using mLearning and MOOCs to Understand Chaos, Emergence, and Complexity in
Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL). 12
(7), 94-115.
Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak Fais Sui, J. (2011) A Pedagogy of Abundance or a Pedagogy to
Support Human Beings? Participant Support on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL). 12 (7), 74-93.
Lara, M. & Barbera, E. (2013) Learning Online: Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs),
Connectivism, and Cultural Psychology. Distance Education, 34 (1), 129-136.
McVay Lynch, M. (2004) Learning Online: A Guide to Success in the Virtual Classroom. New
York, NY: Routledge-Falmer.
Roberts, T. (2004) Online Collaborative Learning: Theory and Practice. Hershey, PA:
Information Science Publishing.
47
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2007) Directions in E-learning Tools and Technologies and Their
Relevance to Online Distance Language Education. Open Learning. Routledge Taylor and
Francis Group. 22 (1), 57-74.
Scanlon, E., McAndrew, P., & O’Shea, T. (2015) Designing for Educational Technology to
Enhance the Experience of Learners in Distance Education: How Open Educational Resources,
Learning Design, and MOOCs Are Influencing Learning. Journal of Interactive Media in
Education, 6, 1-9.
Thomas, M. (2014) Pedagogical Considerations and Opportunities for Teaching and Learning on
the Web. AETID Book Series. New York, NY: Information Science Reference IGI.
Wang, C., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2013) Student’s Characteristics, Self-Regulated Learning,
Technology Self-Efficacy, and Course Outcomes in Online Learning. Department of Educational
Foundations, Leadership, and Technology, Auburn University Haley Center, Auburn, Alabama.
Lowe, C. & Krause, S. (2014) Invasion of the MOOCs: The Promise and Perils of Massive Open
Online Courses. Anderson, IN: Parlor Press.
Richardson, J., York, C., & Lwenthal, P. (2014) Online Learning: Common Misconceptions and
Benefits and Challenges. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
