Artefact 4

My 4th Artefact comes from MDDE 665, Collaboration and Mentoring in Educational Environments. This artefact demonstrates how an assignment can be completed under the most challenging course conditions and how I could immediately apply learned theory to achieve my course objectives. I can also transfer the knowledge gained in this course to my current job where collaboration does not always go as desired.

A Most Challenging Course

I can sometimes learn as much from a well-structured and taught course as I can from a poorly structured and taught course. Competencies discussed in this artefact are reflected in the negative because of this course’s lack of organization, instruction and support, which demonstrated how critical they are when trying to achieve learning objectives. I took MDDE 665, Collaboration and Mentoring in Educational Environments, to enhance my understanding of collaboration and to apply that knowledge in my career as an educator and e-Learning designer. There were seven learning goals of this course, which have all contributed to my understanding of collaboration and mentoring as it applies to education. However, this convoluted and poorly facilitated course has allowed me to better understand how a poorly managed course can hamper learning and frustrate students (1.1). I can apply what I have experienced when designing and teaching courses.

As the Community of Inquiry (CoI) outlines, education requires cognitive, social and teacher presence. Instructors must interact with students to maintain teacher presence, but there is no prescribed amount for effective learning to occur. However, after taking this course I learned that there is a definite minimum where student frustration becomes apparent and participation drops significantly (1.6, 4.5). Student emails to the instructor became shorter and curter; student postings often referred to the lack of instructor feedback and objectives; and online collaboration eroded until there were very few postings by Week 8. My response to this was to become more self-guided and self-sufficient in my learning. I didn’t rely on others for direction, I took what was given, made educated assumptions based on previous course experience and moved on. I appreciated that adult learners must be extended reasonable flexibility due to commitments (4.7). However, through the experience in this course I feel that instructors may be somewhat limited in this flexibility. Many students, include myself, depend on instructors for motivation, inspiration, guidance and perseverance. It is also our paid duty and responsibility as instructors to ensure our courses are running smoothly and that questions and concerns are promptly addressed and students are given timely feedback. I pride myself in doing so, which is why I began to resent the lack of dedication demonstrated by the instructor in this course. I will apply this experience when designing and teaching my own e-Learning courses.

“Rocky” would sum up this course in one word. There were only eight students, which demanded a higher rate of participation from each member. I enjoyed the small class atmosphere as there were typically over 20 students in my classes. I thought that eight students would offer an excellent opportunity for manageable and in-depth collaboration. Ironically, the course countered much of the theory of effective collaboration that was presented in the recommended readings. This course was by far my most challenging for the following reasons (1.2):

Most assignments and due dates were incorrectly posted and had to be confirmed by students, which typically did not receive replies. Flexibility is required in education, but instructors must always be proactive in alerting students of date changes. I am now more conscious of posted dates in my own course designs (2.2).
There was very little teacher presence and no teacher interaction in discussion forums. I found my motivation was severely waning. Determination and the $1500 tuition fee got me through. Students were basically on their own (2.1). It was common practice for MEd program instructors to post at least once in each thread, which initiated further discussion. I have made an effort to ensure instructors interact in courses that I have any control over.
My assigned partner for the course’s major assignment was completely absent. This left me to complete the collaboration task on my own. Emails to my professor requesting alternative solutions went unanswered; I contemplated joining another pair, but chose to complete the assignment on my own rather than disrupting others. The instructor seemed to have no contingency plan should regrouping be necessary; I can now appreciate the importance of having a Plan B when group work goes astray (4.5).
The first assignment was returned a month late while the remainder were returned weeks after the course ended. Grades were not yet posted three weeks after the course’s end date. I do not want my students going through the frustration that I did; I have kept to a personal policy to return major assignments and post grades within a week (2.3) so students can better learn from their errors and demonstrate understanding before the course ends.
Synchronous activities were scheduled every Tuesday at 4:00 p.m., a very inconvenient time for most students. I felt the schedule didn’t consider the students’ lives. I was unable to attend any synchronous session and was therefore not able to apply any collaboration theory (2.4) in a course on collaboration. Voicing my frustration and disapproval proved futile, so I just focused on getting through the course at this point. I have learned to schedule synchronous sessions at various times to best meet the schedules of students.
The weekly activities seemed like make-work activities with little guidance or reasoning behind them. Besides instructions, activities must have a clearly stated objective and learning outcome (2.2, 2.4). I realized how important it is that clear and concise objectives accompany every assignment.

This course has provided me with an excellent example of a poorly managed course (1.5). I will always keep the above shortcomings in mind when developing or instructing a course (1.10) therefore minimizing student frustration and maximizing learning. Student attrition can be very high, and any one of the above points might have motivated two or more of my fellow students to withdraw, but I endured.

On the bright side, this course has allowed me to refine my leadership skills and put them into practice. I initiated discussion much like an engaged instructor would. It allowed me to practice the collaboration needed to get through the course. I initiated much of the sparse discussion and relied on my own resources and judgement to complete tasks (1.7, 1.8). However, it was an avoidable and stressful endeavor.

Artefact 4, assignment 2 (1.3, 1.4), is an example of what I can accomplish with little guidance, little assistance and little time (4.1, 4.2). This assignment was to be collaborative, but my partner was absent for the duration of the assignment. I therefore decided to complete the assignment on my own (4.4). I finished the assignment but I felt a strong sense of resentment and futility. This artefact exemplifies what I can accomplish on my own (4.6). However, that was not the focus of the collaborative assignment; the focus was to engage our peers with probing questions based on our chosen topic and synthesize responses into a conclusion (5.9). The focus was on collaboration, but I learned that you have to have a contingency plan when teaching and designing courses.

I came in to the course hoping that I would turn my negative opinion of collaboration around, but this course has only reinforced my view that collaboration is very problematic and something to be avoided whenever possible. However, this assignment has allowed me to focus on adult learners and to understand the competing demands on our limited resources. MDDE 665 was a good example of a poorly designed and taught course. I have learned from these shortcomings and will strive to avoid them in the future (1.11, 2.7).

Assignment 2 (Artefact 4) Website
https://collaborationtech.wordpress.com

Competencies Achieved

1) Problem Solving, Analysis, & Decision Making

1.1 Recognize problems
1.2 Define the aspects of problems
1.3 Formulate questions
1.4 Find and access information
1.5 Critically evaluate the relevance of information for a given situation
1.6 Compare alternatives using critical analysis
1.7 Make reasoned arguments using critical reflection, leading to rational solutions.
1.8 Justify these solutions
1.10 Recognize the wider implications of specific knowledge
1.11 Adapt solutions to suit varied situations.

2) Instructional Design & Development

2.1 Critically analyze and discuss the implications of personal perspectives and epistemological orientations for the teaching-learning process
2.2 Appropriately apply systems theory and systems analysis techniques to instructional design situations in distance education
2.3 Describe and appropriately apply a range of learning and motivational theories to instructional design situations in distance education
2.4 Describe the activities of the instructional design process and the advantages and disadvantages of using them in distance education contexts
2.5 Develop instructional products or learning objects in distance education
2.7 Apply instructional design principles and models in distance education, in your workplace, or in other instructional contexts.

4) Communication & Interpersonal Skills

4.1 Write clearly and in a style appropriate to purpose (e.g. assignments, essays, published documents, and theses)
4.2 Construct coherent arguments and articulate ideas clearly to a range of audiences, formally and informally, through a variety of techniques and media
4.4 Support the learning of others when involved in teaching, mentoring, moderating, collaboration or demonstration activities
4.5 Participate and contribute effectively in collaborative group activities
4.6 Demonstrate effective design, delivery and critical evaluation of presentations, computer conferences, or seminars
4.7 Work cooperatively with diverse groups and individuals both within the university and/or in the workplace

5) Research

5.9 Conduct effective interviews for research purposes