I find myself thinking about how I teach currently versus how I would now like to teach. I am in a fortunate position of having an excellent Program, which is modern and represents aspects of the industry that I believe in. I am, therefore, teaching into a Program that I am happy to stand up and defend. My Program has also been set up by an innovative Head of Program and a lecturer who I respect. We have, as a Program, mapped our PLO’s to the AQF and most courses have had their CLO’s updated consistent to how the University advocates. Having said that, I am enjoying the examination of my chosen course. I find myself getting excited about changing the course, improving it to improve the student experience. My course already gets very high feedback, and it is relevant to the industry. However the course needs to better reflect student needs and industry expectations. There are definitely changes to be made. My advantage is that I am working with a good framework rather than a blank canvas. I can improve the CLOs and the assessment, update the textbook and introduce online teaching and assessment with confidence that the course will do what I want it to do. I find myself motivated to examine all courses in my Program, including the development of new courses, revise the PLOs and set up a you beaut Program that will become the envy of other universities! Our point of difference with other university programs is the inclusion of writing skills for public relations practitioners and the inclusion of marketing for journalists. This provides a well rounded student with high employability. After studying this course, I can now articulate my vision in a pedagogically sound manner. I can justify the teaching philosophy we have adopted and the learning theories we use to teach. I can provide solid explanations of the assessment and I can confidently engage students online. But more than all of that, I now (for the first time) understand how it all fits together. I have a big picture incorporating my little course in the world of tertiary education.

My chosen course is Media Writing, an introductory level course in the Bachelor of Professional Communication. I am using this course for Assessment Three. Before I provide my personal view of course level design, I find myself reflecting on why I chose the course for this assessment. I chose the course at the start of term because I had just finished teaching it and it is out of date. It needs beautifying. That’s what I thought then.

This is what I think now:

The course is part of the Professional Communication curriculum. It introduces concepts at the start of the course, and the students learning is scaffolded until they reach the level expected in the course learning outcomes. Also, the concepts students learn in Media Writing are scaffolded into other courses within the curriculum. Any new course design needs to consider Media Writing’s place in the curriculum, the expected level of student knowledge at the start of the course, and the expected student learning by the end.

Also, the Learning Outcomes of my new Media Writing course need to reflect where Media Writing sits in the curriculum, as well as how the course contributes to the Program Learning Outcomes of the Bachelor of Professional Communication.

Also, the Bachelor of Professional Communication is heading into a five year review. I need to be sure that the new Media Writing will still achieve what it needs to achieve in order to contribute to the new curriculum.

Phew!

I am not simply writing a new course to make it pretty and teach students about writing for the media. The new course needs to do that as well as fit within the curriculum AND adhere to AQF requirements and university policies.

And at the same time that I am doing all that, I need to ensure students are actually meeting the course learning outcomes. I do this through course design and assessment. But in order to design a course and its assessment, I need to understand my student cohort. The design and assessment must be relevant for online students, and I know that most of the student cohort are part time, mature age and working full time in the industry – but not all. This is where my knowledge of learning theories becomes applicable.

Thanks to last term’s Nature of Learning and Teaching, I know that constructivism will only do part of the job for me in Media Writing. There are “rules” that students must master to meet the learning outcomes; rules that can only be taught through behaviourist methods. This move me into the “strategy” step of instructional design. I need to structure a course that gets students to where they need to be. Then I show that students are at that point through assessment.

I anticipate that the structure of Media Writing will be formal – there are rules to master before moving onto the next concept, and those concepts need to be mastered before moving onto advanced courses. However, student learning (particularly deep learning) can be encouraged through thoughtful course design.

This is now my starting point. Now I can begin!

The question posed in this activity is whether behaviourism is still valid in the 21st century. One of the “new” learning theories presented in the readings is connectivism. I will respond to the activity question by reflecting on behaviourism’s relationship to connectivity.

I like the theory of connectivity as explained in the reading by Seimens. They way I read it, connectivism allows students to question everything. Or at least it is a theory that achnowledges that students’ learning will be impacted by everything in their lives. If there is conflict between what a student learns from one source and what they learn from another source, connectivism explains that a student is likely to form an opinion based on learning from a third source, or a fourth, or a fifth. In the 21st century, we, as lecturers, need to accept that we are not the only source of information for students. They may believe they know more than us, and they might! What connectivism allows us to do, as lectures, is set up students so they know how to question, or what to question.

My teaching area is Media Writing. From a behaviourist perspective, I teach the students rules about writing, they learn those rules and apply them in writing. If the writing illustrates the rules, the student is correct. If the writing does not illustrate the rules, the student is incorrect. For media writing this has been an accepted approach. As a lecturer I can draw upon examples of media writing to prove that the rules exist.

Within connectivism, students can easily check what I am teaching them. And they do. We have many discussions on writing styles, whether to use a single quotation mark or double quotation mark, how to introduce a news article, and many other examples.

Does this affect the way I teach? Absolutely! Until I completed the readings on connectivity, I was not aware of the terminology, but I absolutely agree with it. As a lecturer, I encourage students to question, and my understanding of connectivity theory allows me to acknowledge that the questioning will be constant from students who live in a digital age. Rather than frightening, it is liberating! I can encourage student activities that critique the content they have just been taught. Students can use their natural connectivity to find the responses, thus using a constructivism approach. And by the fact that I set the task, and apply boundaries to it, I am still working within a behaviourist framework.

In answer to the question posed in this activity “Is behaviourism still a valid learning theory?” I say yes. However, the context has changed. The setting has changed. And the students have changed. As we were taught at the beginning of this Theme, not one learning theory will apply completely. So it is with behaviourism. If we view behaviourism through its 1940s lens, then it is most certainly not valid. But if we view behaviourism with a knowledge of how learning takes place today, then yes.

I use behaviourism as a learning theory. And I maintain that I need to use behaviourism because students need to know the “rules” about media writing. I need to set boundaries for the students, otherwise assessment would be inconsistent and moderation impossible. But I do not use behaviourism in isolation. I use it with constructivism, which recognises students’ individuality, and connectivity, which acknowledges students’ exposure to myriad sources of information.

I subscribe to a lot of ezines, blogs and forums. I do this to keep informed about developments within my industry (public relations, journalism and professional communication).

I subscribe to an enewsletter by Tony Jacques about crisis communication. Called “Managing Outcomes” the newsletter is emailed to subscribers and generally features a case study based on current events.

I subscribe to a lot of forums and groups on LinkedIn. I have experimented with a number of forums and providers. I have settled on LinkedIn because of its professional focus. There is also the added benefit of linking directly to my electronic resume. If I comment, people can see who I am to be making such comments. Likewise, I can view everyone else’s profile too. I mainly subscribe to the public relations and professional communication groups. The other advantage of LinkedIn is that you have to be accepted into a group. This means that you will know other group members (at least by industry). For example, the Public Relations Institute of Australia group only accepts current paying members of the PRIA.

I subscribe to many, many Twitter accounts – mostly relating to public relations and journalism. Some are linked to blogs like @jayrosen while others are linked to hashtags like #commschat. Most are reputable news sites and emergency services, like the Queensland Police Service, Breaking News and ABC. I love being able to follow events from start to finish and knowing immediately. It can become compelling however, and distracting, so I use Tweet Deck to order some of my subscriptions and avoid becoming overwhelmed.

I have several RSS feeds that let me know when blogs I am following have a new post added. Much easier than checking the blogs individually each day!

ProfComm@CQUni also has a Facebook site, a You Tube Channel and a Twitter account. We use this to reach our student groups – informally, rather than in any targetted pedagogical way (except for You Tube which hosts all of our online lectures).

The readings in Theme 5 have encouraged me to look further at these subscriptions. All of them, without exception, are about my industry rather than about learning and teaching. Whilst I use examples from this information within the class setting, it is to illustrate a point and to keep my content current, not to improve my teaching. The blog by Graham Attwell, Pontydysgu, as recommended in our readings for this activity is excellent. The number of international visitors and the depth of information is awesome. I notice that Graham Attwell also has a Twitter address and Facebook group.

So now I have started adding to my subscriptions. Being a Twitter nut, I have found @moocsNews, a learner-focused online directory of MOOCS, and @insidehighered featuring higher education news. This led me to the Inside Higher Ed blog at http://www.insidehighered.com which, although American based, provides some great international news about the university sector – including trends in learning and teaching. Then I found http://www.changinghighereducation.com a fantastic blog about how changes in the world are redefining excellence in tertiatry teaching. Then I found a group on LinkedIn called “Higher Education Teaching and Learning” – I submitted a request to join the group, my joy at the LinkedIn restrictions may yet come back to haunt me!

This has been a very useful and productive exercise for me. It has reinforced to me that I need to look beyond my area of expertise to  the nature of my teaching.

I am really enjoying this theme about engagement. I love the idea of integrating technology into our courses as a means of engaging students. This serves several purposes. The first, of course, is to communicate to students who exist in this technological world. I’ve had classes where the students teach me about how to use the technology! The second purpose is that it shows the students that the University is not stagnant. We are willing to change and to embrace technology as it becomes available. I have a more phlosophical view about technology integration, than a view which incorporates specific technologies. I will try and explain it.

I share with my journalism students an anecdote about the New York Times, a leading newspaper in the United States. Newspapers all over the world were going out of business because of the move to online news. Advertisers were taking their revenue to online sources, or setting up their own websites. The need for advertising in newspapers has gone. Without advertising, newspapers have no revenue. Plus, the desire for immediate news means that people are no longer willing to wait until a newspaper is published the day after an event. So newspapers all over the world were closing down. Two large newspapers – the NY Times and the Tribune – took different approaches to this threat on their existence. The Tribune decided people would continue to buy newspapers if the content was interesting – so they wrote about sex and scandals and porn. Problem was, it wasn’t news. And it turns out people want news. The NY Times took another position and went digital. It lost paper advertisers, so the paper copy was much smaller than it once was but it continued to print newspapers. All of the stories were also published on the website. The sales of newspapers continued because people saw the news on the web but preferred to read about it in the newspaper. Then the iPad was invented. The NY Times was one of the first to invent a newspaper App. They charge a subscription fee for the reader and have advertising space online. The NY Times is still going strong, churning out thousands of words a day in news. The Tribune is bankrupt. The NY Times embraced the technology. For my journalism students, the moral of the story is to think about the target public and to choose the medium most appropriate to reach them. For us lecturers, I think there is a similar moral. Just because the technology exists does not necessarily mean we jump in head first, but if embracing the technology allows us to teach more efficiently and allows the students to learn more readily, then we have a level of obligation to our industry to try different teaching methods.

I love the idea about using Twitter in classes. That immediacy is just what the students are used to. I’d be interested to see if it worked in a class setting. It has been my experience that students prefer Facebook. In my course, we look at Twitter from a journaistic perspective, and it is fascinating just how few students use it. Twitter (according to my students) is too hard. (I love Twitter: its brevity, its immediacy, and its potential to link through to more details.) Now, Facebook however is a different matter. From a quick show of hands in my class of 25, about 24 had iPhones, all of which were turned on. Half were on Facebook checking status updates during class and three had posted an update in that class! Professional Communication has its own Facebook page. When we update a status, it is sent to our “friends” and it appears in their news feed. The student can choose to read it or not, but the message is getting through. I have not posted during a class – but after this Twitter suggestion, I might just do so.

Based on this week’s readings, I critiqued the way I give feedback to students.

I use the “sandwich” approach. I like to provide a brief summary of the overall quality of the assessment in a positive way. This is one sentence. I then say what could be improved in 2-3 dot points – the consistent problems evident in the assessment. The 2-3 points of what was done well. I usually end with a forward looking statement to end.

I try and use my comments to improve student’s abilities, not just to improve the assessment, so I am forward thinking on behalf of the student. I avoid over-correcting grammar and typos. I’ll point them out once and explain.

One major difference in the way I give feedback compared to that proposed in OLTC20003 is that I use third person, referring to the assessment rather than the student. This is how I was introduced to feedback, and I have (until now) made quite a distinct effort to write in this way.

As an example, in the most recent assessment from students (an online post), students were consistently posting the reference list in an incorrect style. Some were attempting to use the correct style (we use Harvard) but others did not use any or the style was wildly incorrect. I responded to all students about their referencing, I added an additional post explaining the referencing requirements, and showed them an example. I also posted a link to the Harvard referencing manual in the library. I posted my comments in (what I believe) is a positive way, however I did use third person. A typical comment was something like “When referencing online news articles using the Harvard style, the author’s surname goes first followed by their first initial.” For some posts I added that they could refer to my posted example or the Harvard guide for detailed information.

I provide my feedack as quickly as possible. Even though the university allows two weeks to complete marking, I start marking as early as I can and can often return the assessments to students within a week. This is very hard work for me, but the student feedback I have received in relation to this indicates they really appreciate the quick turn around.

I was fortunate that when I started as an academic, I had excellent guidance from a colleague, including in relation to giving feedback. I modelled my feedback on the way she provided feedback, as well as the feedback I had received as a student (that I felt was constructive). I was also fortunate (?) enough to have a student complain about my feedback. Ironically, she believed I had given her too much feedback and that my postive comments were not constructive. (I guess you can’t please everyone!) The complaint was made to the Dean, and passed to the Head of Program to investigate. This experience taught me about the nature of feedback, and I have followed the above techniques ever since without incident. This includes the use of third person, which I will now reassess given the content and readings of OLTC20003.

Most of what I recognise as university teaching uses a systems approach to learning. Students are required to achieve outcomes. They do this by moving through modules sequentialy, building prerequisite skills as they progress. Achievement of outcomes is measured using assessment. My courses are set up in this way. This course (OLTC20003) is similarly structured. We learn one concept, then build on it and move onto the next advanced concept. This is an objectivist approach to learning. The role of “teacher” is dominant since the teacher sets the learning outcomes, the module content, and the assessment. The students is reuqired to (mostly) passively absorb the information, ala Information Processing theory. Although there are elements of constructivist learning theories in specific teaching strategies (for example encouragin students to apply knowledge and question with justification – I will explore this in a moment) the structure of an (undergraduate) university experience (in my field) is objectivist. The learning processes change in post graduate where independent thought is required. The only course where a constructivist approach is evident in my Program is the Communication Project. Learning outcomes are set (as required by the university) and sugestions are made by the lecturer as to how these learning outcomes can be achieved, byt the specific learning is dictated by the student. The student sets their own assessment (justified to the learning outcomes in a “proposal” submitted in Week 3).

Specifically, in my course Media Writing, I use a cognitive-behavioural learning theory (within the systems approach framework imposed by the university) which teaches students basic skills and progresses these skills each week, until the end of the course when the whol of the parts are joined together. This is a typical cognitive-behavious approach, which espouses “bottom-up” learning hierarchies (Roblyer and Doering, 2012, p.39). My assessment has set requirements and performance objectives that must be achieved. This is measured using a marking rubric that sets out different levels of learning. This approach is theoretically sound, since the students do not have enough prior learning to be self-guided.

That is not to say that constructivist approaches are not evident. The Professional Communication Program demontrates elements of Dewey’s social activism theory. The individual course are integrated, and influence and affect the other courses to make a degree that provides well-rounded learning. The content learned in one course is built uon in subsequent courses, sometimes concurrently. Students are made work-ready with practical experience.

Another example of constructivist elements is the use of discussions where a “what if” question is raised. Students can respond with their own experience and views. This has been a very useful activity when discussing ethics, where the expectations of behaviour are grey and are heavily influenced by the personal belief of the individuals.

Advanced courses emphasise group work as part of learning. This is used to reflect real-world situations where work colleagues are seldom chosen, but are imposed on the employee. The end result is generally a recognition that more can be achieved as a group than as an individual. Another example is the submission of a student portfolio as part of the assessment. This is individually completed and marked individually, albeit within the objectivist structure dictated by assessment criteria!

I have a small personal example of social cognitive theory, particularly vicarious modeling behaviour. This term I am teaching two courses. Both have similar assessment – a series of forum posts on Moodle. In one course students posted their posts to the forum as you would expect. In the other course, the first student to post added her post as a Word attachment. So did the second student and the third. A couple of students posted “normally” but soon all the posts were coming in as attachments. The students had vicariously learned that posts could be added by an attachment and had subsequently modeled their behaviour to conform to this expectation.

There are a variety of criticisms of objectivist approaches and constructivist approachs to learning theory. I will discuss the criticisms that apply to my courses. This also serves as a justification of why a combined approach is the most efficient. There are four main criticisms of the objectivist approach. The first is that students can’t apply skills later and that skills are isolated. I believe we address this by integrating the learning between courses, students can build on skills in introductory courses to advanced courses. Further, good learning outcomes will explain why such a skills-approach is necessary and is reflected in a real-world environment. Secondly, it is said that learning using an objectivist approach is repetitive and predictable, students get bored and drop out. I believe this can be addressed using som constructivist techniques that engage students at an individual level, and allow students to put their own spin on their learning. Thirdly, not all topics len themselves to direct approaches. I agree with this. The Communication Project is out capstone course and takes a constructivist approach. Within courses, there is opportunity to apply constructivist theories. Finally, students do not work cooperatively in an objectivist approach. I agree with this. Where this is relevant, students in my courses are encouraged to work in groups. For example tutorial exercises are often group based.

There are four broad criticisms of the constructivist approach to learning theory as apply to my courses. The first relates to teacher accountability. This required accountability prevents individualised teacher certifications. This is perhaps the biggest drawback to adopting a constructivist approach in a university setting. The sheer volume of content, student numbers and individualised learning prohibits such an approach. It is simply logistically impossible in the current university system. Secondly, the constructivist approach is too time-consuming to be practical. University terms have a set time frame. To a certain extent we allow self-directed learning by having the full courses Moodle ready at the start of term so students can progress at thier own pace, however this is still within a structured framework. Thirdly, not all topics lend themselves to conructivist approaches. This is particularly true where student learning has not yet reached a point where it can be self-guided. This tends to be the case in introductory courses. Finally, despite learning being anchored in authentic problems, students may not transfer skills to real-life situtions. I do not believe this is isolated to the constructivist approach. The applicability of specific knowledge will necessarily be individal. How that student applies the knowledge will depend on them. We can prepare them to a certain point, but the higher level application must be individualised. It’s like saying that one ingredient in a recipe is not available therefore you can’t make the cake. It depends on teh ingredient, the recipe and the cook. The cake might still be possible jsut not in exactly the same form as the cookbook.

In summary, the university system dictates an objectivist approach to teaching, and as lecturers we must abide by university policy and structure our courses accordingly. Within this framework, however we are afforded some generous freedom in how we present our information. It is here, in this teaching space, that we can employ contrructivist approaches and reach the ideal balance for the benefit of our students.

All of this needs to be prefaced by the recognition that students have different motivations and different learning styles, and that all of this needs to link with the course learning outcomes!

In my field (professional communication) the world moves quickly. (I guess this is the same everywhere and for everyone.) Once upon a time we used to call people from my field “journalists” and there is still a meaning associated with this term. However the reality is that “journalists” have a much broader remit than ever before. The world has changed so much that terminology has not kept up. We now struggle with “citizen journalism”, an idea that anyone with a smart phone can report the news. “Journalists” overlap with other “media professionals” (what’s that?) and a plethora of other careers include journalistic elements. 

I, as a lecturer, am no longer teaching students how to be a journalist, I am teaching them journailstic skills. Even here at  CQUniversity we struggle with the terminology and have settled on “professional communication” as the most appropriate description of what we do. We are also a very practical program – our intent is making the students work-ready within professional communication.

To be an online educator, we have read, involves us wearing a lot of hats. We research, design, facilitate, assess, administer and advise. I would add to this that, for my field, we also need to “practice what we preach”. Keeping your hand in. Being current. Understanding the issues of the media workplace. This, to me at least, is more than being a researcher. I can look from the outside at the changes within journalism, but if I live and experience those changes can’t I then help the students with their understanding even more? It gives me an opportunity to engage with the students – reagardless of all the teaching tricks I might use to keep them interested!

When I studied journalism as an undergraduate, I can remember two different lecturers. One had been part of the university furniture longer than anyone can remember. The other was a former journalist in her first year in academia. I learned so much more from her than I did from the old Professor. He was very knowledgable, and I mean him absolutely no disrespect, but his lectures were necessarily theoretical. And whilst I accept that this is part of learning, I was a lot less work-ready because of him than had all of my lecturers been like the former journalist. That’s not to say he was a bad teacher – he was funny and friendly and knew his stuff, he just wasn’t interesting. I didn’t want to be like him. The former journalist was actually a bit pushy and aggressive but she was able to explain how she used that gumption in journalism and her examples were fascinating. 

Perhaps another term could be “public relations practitioner” or “reputation management”. After all, if we don’t believe the product, how can we expect the students to? This links logically with the “practice what we preach” element. The benefit of walking the walk is that students can see what they are doing actually working for real. And that gains respect for our product. And isn’t that a good thing?