After reviewing the open course programs, I surmise that if I had done my homework well enough I would have chosen an open source course rather than pursue a degree program. The open course I selected was Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The particular class I selected to review was “Technologies for Creative Learning.” It was carefully pre-planned and designed for a distance learning environment. The course description included activities which focused on new educational technologies, and created opportunities for students’ reflections on learning experiences. The instruction was centered on students learning Web 2.0 technologies.
The course utilized a course management system (CMS). The CMS included a syllabus, course calendar, assignment instructions, as well as learning objectives. There were specific readings that were required in order to complete class assignments. Students were able to download videos of previous class sessions as well as communicate in groups. Instructors provided examples of past projects to give students an idea of what their counterparts did and for them to see what was expected of them. There were assessments for which the instructors provided the solutions. Students received immediate feedback. The open course met the seven lessons for online instruction as cited by Graham, Cagiltay, Lim, Craner, and Duffy (2001). Instructors provided clear guidelines for interaction with students; the assignments were designed well enough to facilitate meaningful cooperation among students; students presented course projects; instructors provided feedback; there were deadlines for course projects, the tasks were challenging; students’ work was displayed and students were allowed to choose project topics. (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, Zvacek, 2012, p. 179)
I particularly liked the fact that students role-played and became facilitators. It was a creative way of get students involved and also an opportunity for them to learn some leadership skills. The differences I noticed with the open course were that classes met once or twice a week, thereby reducing the amount of stress. The classes were free, and students had access to any archived class 24/7. The course activities were interactive which involved all students.
In the course text “Teaching and Learning at a Distance,” the authors stated “many administrators have expressed concern that courses taught at a distance do not have the same standard of quality associated with the on-campus courses” (Simonson et al, p. 209). After examining the open course, this is far from the truth. This open course had lots of rigor and interactivity. I learned a new game called “Scratch.” It is not necessary to learn programming to use Scratch. It is a logical game. One of the assignments was for students to teach someone else how to use Scratch. I accepted the challenge and learned Scratch. It was very engaging.
Resnick, Mitchel, and Karen Brennan. MAS.714J Technologies for Creative Learning, Fall 2009. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT OpenCourseWare), http://ocw.mit.edu (Accessed 01 Apr, 2012). License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment