Friday, April 29, 2022

A Decades Long Dance With Open Educational Practices

A reflection to capture a few brief thoughts & snapshots of lived experiences dancing with open educational practices as a researcher and teacher educator. 

From the time I started my own doctoral journey in 1995, a great deal of my research and teaching has taken place in the open, for anybody with an internet connection to see. Sharing my own work openly and my open education pedagogy with students reflects a deeply held commitment to knowledge building in community and democratizing knowledge. Researching, teaching and academic publishing in the open has also reflected my commitment to the horizon and disrupting the status quo, interrogating practices that are past their best by date, and ensuring that the underrepresented in the academy - in this case, a female, then mother in EdTech, were more visible and their voices heard. 

As a doctoral student, a professor in computer science invited us to publish all of our coursework on a website. One course based task was to go to 12 public events during the term, and write a short review of that event and what we learned from the speaker or the workshop. My supervisor engaged me in his internet research project, which, among other methods involved an online survey. I carried that method forward into my doctoral research, and used an online survey with faculty on how they were adopting technology for teaching, research and administrative tasks. Engaging in online research methodology requires that one become aware of the ever evolving process and procedures with Internet Research Ethics; this line of inquiry led to a co-authored article in CJHE (open access of course!) with a doctoral student (Warrell & Jacobsen, 2014) on the policy gap for ethical practice in online research settings. 

Connected to my open educational practices and experiences as doctoral student, I chose to publish my doctoral dissertation on my personal website (archived PhD) so it would be more discoverable and accessible than the lovely hardcover blue book sitting on a shelf. Openly sharing my dissertation online, while not very exotic today, given the plethora of digital repositories full of theses & dissertations, was a bit unusual in 1998 when few dissertations were OA. According to Google Scholar, Jacobsen (1998) has been cited every year since going online, so my goal of making this research more discoverable and accessible has been met (159 citations and counting). An added benefit of an open access dissertation have been the connections with a global community of researchers who shared an interest in this line of inquiry. The PRISM version indicates 795 downloads and 137 page views, so the benefits of dropping your dissertation into a digital repository includes painless tracking of statistical information, country views and item views by month. 

Research and Thinking in the Open

I started this GirlProf blog in 2008, well after many EdTech bloggers took flight. That summer, I was teaching an EdTech Doctoral Seminar, and I figured I better extend upon my use of wikis and websites by modelling blogging as a way to share ideas in the open. My initial goal for the blog was to increase transparency and engage in myth-busting about a female professor trying to balance life in and beyond the academy. In my first post in July 2008, I aim to disrupt the myth that teaching only a few hours per week gives professors plenty of "free" time. As I had time, I added to the blog and branched off into other forms of academic mom stories and myth-busting, like republishing a 7-year old letter to a columnist  in which I argue that technology increases versus decreases interest in literacy and reading: An EdTech View on Literacy and Harry Potter. Or the one about how academic moms never stop, even when nursing a new baby. There are a few dozen posts on powerful learning using technology (kids and tech 2009, texting in class 2010, and new cultures for learning 2011). 

Teaching in the Open

Along with teaching on-campus, I have taught online throughout my career. The first course I taught online was in 1995, and it was an EdTech seminar. In my teaching with both undergraduate and graduate students, I have always tended to include an assignment or two that involves online sharing, from student created blogs, podcasts, wikis, VR spaces, microblogging and twitter chats, and various types of co-created or individually created websites. For many years, I was privileged to teach an Inquiry and Technology seminar in which student teachers posted all of their work in the open, and engaged in peer review of each other's work. I co-created the EdD in Educational Technology, and we welcomed our first cohort in 2008. An assignment with a great deal of impact was the Doctoral Pathfinder, in which I invited students to curate an open access collection of experts, journals, conferences & resources related to their research problem and questions. Students valued their own pathfinders as a way to keep track and grow their academic and professional networks and open educational practices, and gained much from the access to each other's pathfinders. While many of my open educational practices have evolved & matured over the years, I have also continued to innovate and expand my open educational practices. In the past few years, I have been working with a team of scholars who have supported masters students in publishing their Ethics and Educational Technology research in the open using Pressbooks (2020, 2021). 

Academic Publishing in the Open

As a doctoral student, I was involved in creating and launching an open access leadership journal (IEJLL). As a new assistant professor, I worked with two undergraduate students to launch an open access journal for student scholarship (EGallery). Later, as an Associate professor I worked as an Advisory Editor with a talented group of graduate students who launched a peer reviewed journal for new scholars in education (CJNSE). As the Editor of CJLT from 2005-2010, I led the transition from dual-medium to fully open access. In my V35(1) Editorial, I capture a brief history of the journal from newsletter in 1972, to journal and then open access.  

To be continued



Thursday, March 24, 2022

My work as a professor: a continuous adventure that is rarely boring

In Sharon's and my doctoral seminar this week, we were privileged to welcome and converse with Dr. Stephen Kemmis, distinguished scholar who is internationally recognized for his work on innovation and change in education via action research. In a lively hour of conversation, doctoral students asked Dr. Kemmis many questions related to their research and interests, and he was masterful, generous and humble in response. Dr. Kemmis mentioned his latest book, Transforming Practices: Changing the World with the Theory of Practice Architectures, that I look forward to reading. 

Thank you, Stephen, for accepting our invitation and spending this time with us! It is such a privilege to work with talented doctoral students who are doing research across a spectrum of educational research methodologies. Your insights and comments tonight have invited us all to reflect deeply on our actions in research, the use of evidence to address research questions, and resisting the urge to settle on what is easy to manage or convenient. You have reminded us to push the boundaries, while also keeping our research practical, so that we can get something meaningful happening as we change education through our research.

Through the course of the conversation, Sharon mentioned the work of Nobel Laureate Poet, Wislawa Szymborska, in relation to the act of asking questions being what keeps the pulse of the human alive. Here is an excerpt from Szymborska's acceptance speech: 

"When I’m asked about [inspiration] on occasion, I hedge the question, too. But my answer is this: inspiration is not the exclusive privilege of poets or artists generally. There is, has been, and will always be a certain group of people whom inspiration visits. It’s made up of all those who’ve consciously chosen their calling and do their job with love and imagination. It may include doctors, teachers, gardeners – and I could list a hundred more professions. Their work becomes one continuous adventure as long as they manage to keep discovering new challenges in it. Difficulties and setbacks never quell their curiosity. A swarm of new questions emerges from every problem they solve. Whatever inspiration is, it’s born from a continuous “I don’t know.”

... All sorts of torturers, dictators, fanatics, and demagogues struggling for power by way of a few loudly shouted slogans also enjoy their jobs, and they too perform their duties with inventive fervor. Well, yes, but they “know.” They know, and whatever they know is enough for them once and for all. They don’t want to find out about anything else, since that might diminish their arguments’ force. And any knowledge that doesn’t lead to new questions quickly dies out: it fails to maintain the temperature required for sustaining life....   This is why I value that little phrase “I don’t know” so highly. It’s small, but it flies on mighty wings. It expands our lives to include the spaces within us as well as those outer expanses in which our tiny Earth hangs suspended".

I appreciate Sharon's insight and the opportunity to reflect on my work as a professor, a calling that involves asking new questions and discovering new challenges, approaching knowledge with I don't know -- which has led to a lifelong adventure that is rarely, if ever, boring. 

Wisława Szymborska – Nobel Lecture. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2022. Wed. 23 Mar 2022. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1996/szymborska/lecture/

Friday, February 25, 2022

Supervisors Cannot Bear the Sole Burden for Effective Graduate Education

Recently, Sharon, Sandra and I were excited to see our first article published from a research project focused on understanding Online Doctoral Supervision: 

Jacobsen, M., Friesen, S., & Becker, S. (2021). Online supervision in a professional doctorate in education: Cultivating relational trust within learning alliances. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(6), 635-646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1991425 (Q1 Education Journal)

Inspired by a great presentation by Dr. Brockway, Nursing, on the value of tweetorials to increase awareness of one's work, I tried my hand at writing one in 18 parts (see below): https://twitter.com/dmichelej/status/1488651595889856513

Dr. Kay Guccione, an amazing colleague I have come to know through IDERN, saw the tweetorial, and invited us to write this blog post: 

      Jacobsen, M., Friesen, S., & Becker, S. (2022, February). Trust grows when supervisors take the lead in online supervision. Guest post on Dr. Kay Guccione’s Supervising PhDs Blog. https://supervisingphds.wordpress.com/2022/02/23/trust-grows-when-supervisors-take-the-lead-in-online-supervision/


The three of us have drafted a book chapter from this research for a book (in review) and look forward to sharing it soon. 


Our Tweetorial in 18 Parts


Online supervision in a professional doctorate in education: Cultivating relational trust within learning alliances, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, DOI:10.1080/14703297.2021.1891425
@sfriesen @sandralynnbeck a #tweetorial

The rapid and widespread pivot to online teaching and supervision in the pandemic created a pressing need to improve understanding of effective online supervisory relationships 2/18

@dmichelej @sfriesen @sandralynnbeck’s case study yielded five enabling factors for effective online supervisory relationships 1) Establish trust early in relationship 2) Engage intentionally in mentorship and scaffolding 3/18

3) Provide multiple levels and layers of support 4) Give timely formative feedback 5) Cultivate a collaborative community of support for doctoral student writing 4/18

Establishing a trusting relationship early, and then cultivating ongoing relational trust throughout the supervisory relationship, is essential for student progress, success & satisfaction 5/18

Effective supervisors establish regular meeting times with their doctoral students and organise deadlines for milestones early in the program 6/18

Effective online doctoral supervisors engage in student focused, responsive and tailored mentoring that evolves and changes year by year 7/18

Supervisors & programs need to understand and leverage the academic and social support provided by peer relationships in doctoral cohorts 8/18

Regular, timely and purposeful communication along with multiple rounds of productive feedback using a range of technologies is necessary for effective online supervisory relationships 9/18

Supervisors emphasize mentoring doctoral students as they develop disciplinary knowledge and engage in different forms of scholarly writing is a community experience rather than an individual endeavour 10/18

Supervisors emphasize the value of the supervisory committee in supporting students to work through multiple drafts of the research proposal, chapters in the dissertation, and to bring diverse perspectives to research-based learning 11/18

Doctoral graduates emphasised that trust and knowing their supervisor had their best interests at heart was key as they engaged in mentored academic writing 12/18

Student’s trust and knowledge their supervisor and committee supports their work & provides ongoing, formative feedback and sound advice through multiple drafts and continual review is key to their writing and research progress 13/18

The power asymmetry in supervisor-student relationships & student-program interactions means the supervisor must lead and initiate actions to reduce students’ sense and experiences of vulnerability in the relationship and in the program 14/18

Institutions and programs must understand that “supervisors cannot bear the sole burden for effective graduate education” (p. 10) 15/18

Institutions must ensure doctoral program designs and technological infrastructure provides fertile ground for students & professors to develop effective online supervisory relationships 16/18

Universities must provide access to online faculty development for professors to build capacity, join networks of support and create learning alliances across disciplines for effective supervision https://ucalgary.ca/graduate-supervision-mooc 17/18

@dmichelej @sfriesen @sandralynnbeck are grateful to the supervisors & doctoral graduates who shared their experiences and insights in our case study of Online doctoral supervision 18/18 fini DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2021.1891425

Monday, January 3, 2022

A Bold New Association of Scholars and Practitioners: Open/Technology in Education, Society, and Scholarship

OTESSA:  An incredible community of open and technology scholars and practitioners in education were active and bold in growing a new association in 2020 and 2021. Our collective work has resulted in two new issues of a peer-reviewed journal and a conference proceedings of papers from 2020 and 2021. I am proud to be a part of this collaborative and collective scholarly work that serves to cultivate and engage a global community of scholars and practitioners who are committed to pushing at the edges of our discipline. 

Thursday, July 29, 2021

A day of Academic Work - On campus versus Home Office

It has been a while since I wrote about a "day in the life of girlprof". These two vignettes offer a brief glimpse and opportunity to compare pace, balance and wellness between an On Campus Workday Vs. a Home Office Workday. 

Campus Workday

Wake up. Start Coffee. Feed cats. Slurp coffee while doing an hour of email and preparation for a day of meetings. Shower. Dress in professional clothes. Nylons. Heels. Breakfast at home, or a smoothie in car on way to work. Drive 40 minutes to campus in rush hour traffic, often doing a hands-free phone meeting from car. Unpack bag, hit the restroom. Meeting, Email, Meeting, Phone call, Meeting, Email, Meeting. Lunch, if I brought one, mostly over my keyboard trying to get work done from meetings. If no lunch, granola bars or scrounged food bolted down between meetings. Afternoon meeting, meeting, meeting, meeting. Occasional drop-ins throughout the days. Sporadic walks across campus to a workshop. Drive 40 minutes home in rush hour traffic, often picking up takeout for supper, often doing a phone meeting from car.  Rushed dinner, sometimes with family, then catch up on a few household tasks. 

Home Office Workday

Wake up. Coffee with husband. Feed cats. Read email. Eat a cooked breakfast on a plate. Use actual silverware. Early phone meeting. Start a load of Laundry. Shower. Dress code casual. Bare feet. Zoom meeting. Do work from meeting. Zoom meeting. Put clothes in dryer, plan supper. Walk to mailbox and back. Zoom meeting. Lunch on deck sans laptop. Fold clothes. Prep supper. Zoom meeting. Check on garden, turn on sprinkler. Zoom meeting. Do work from meeting. Move sprinkler. Zoom meeting. Start supper. Turn off sprinkler. Greet children and talk to them after school. Do work from meetings. Enjoy a family meal. Engage in clean up and picking the night's activity. 

Of course, this is a simplified and aggregated example of two days, shared for the insights on pace, balance and wellness they might offer. The one vignette offers insight into the lack of balance an institutionalized workday can become and the other vignette offers insight into the wellness and balance that can come from working and living at home, often in bare feet, without gobbling over a keyboard.


Friday, April 9, 2021

Analysis of digital literacies in the Draft Alberta K-6 Curriculum (Brown & Jacobsen, 2021)

By Barbara Brown & Michele Jacobsen

Over the past couple of weeks, Alberta educators, curriculum experts and researchers have offered a variety of responses to the March 2021 Draft Alberta K-6 Curriculum [start here, here, here, and here]. One journalist gave the draft top marks, but most experts, after detailed and critical review, assign a failing grade. Dr. Carla Peck, Professor of Social Studies Education, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, completed a detailed analysis of the draft K-6 Social Studies Curriculum and calls for a complete re-write. In a future post, we will address the clear disconnect between professional practice expectations of teachers (TQS), school leaders (LQS), and superintendents (SLQS) and the draft K-6 curriculum. The professional practice standards include competencies for applying foundational knowledge of First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples and culture in educational professionals’ work with children, and these ideas and concepts are only superficially addressed in the draft curriculum. 


An explosion of social media activity includes diverse commentary and sharp critiques that run counter the positive and defensive narrative from the ministry. We appreciate the detailed analysis of plagiarism in the curriculum documents provided by our colleague, Dr. Sarah Elaine Eaton, from the University of Calgary. The two of us (Drs. Brown and Jacobsen) have decided to weigh in on the relative lack of any meaningful role for learning technology and digital media in the draft K-6 Curriculum documents. Our initial analysis contributes a review of digital literacies and competencies, technology, coding and ethics from an educational technology perspective. The two of us hold teaching expertise and our doctorates in educational technology, conduct research in online and blended K-12 and post-secondary contexts, and have been involved in development of the Information and Communication Technology Curriculum (2000) and the Technology Policy Framework (2013) . We have both served as members of the School Technology Advisory Committee in Alberta. Alberta Education has been a world leader in the integration of technology for learning across the curriculum. The timeline of learning and technology in Alberta from 1975 to 2009 also includes various initiatives and research projects that we have both been part of and provides a foundation for our research in Alberta schools. We are also involved in designing and continually updating contemporary university programs for educators, such as the Leading and Learning in a Digital Age graduate certificate that invites critical inquiry on leading learning and teaching with technology across the curriculum. 


The following themes emerged in our analysis of close to 273 pages of draft curriculum documents including the competency progressions, literacy progressions, numeracy progressions, subject introductions and draft curriculum for ELA, Fine Arts, Mathematics, Physical Education and Wellness, Science, Social Studies, and Visual Arts. Our review does not include the French Immersion or French Language curriculum, Dance, Music or Drama. We suggest further analysis of learning technologies and digital literacy should include all of the draft curriculum documents.


Our initial analysis includes five key areas of concern related to digital literacies in the draft K-6 curriculum. First, we note that digital literacies and digital competencies are not part of the literacy progressions. We note that digital texts are referenced 5 times, as are vague notions of modes and media. We argue that specific reference to digital literacies and digital competencies must be included in the literacy progressions in a modern curriculum, especially if Alberta children are to learn how to navigate, evaluate and create knowledge in this post-truth era in which disinformation, appeals to emotion and fake news proliferates. 


Second, the outcomes that include the terms technology, technologies or digital are limited in frequency throughout the curriculum, include few expectations for the early grades and are unclear with a possibility for different interpretations:

  • Words with technology appeared in 20 instances in the English Language Arts, Math and Science documents, and the term “technologies” also appeared in 20 instances but only in the Science documents. 
  • In the English Language Arts K-6 draft, the first of three instances of technology appeared in grade 4. Based on our research, we are concerned about this omission in K-3 in the English Language Arts curriculum and discuss findings from one of our studies with early learners using technology here. The way the term technology and technologies are used in the draft curriculum are ambiguous. For example, in the Language arts curriculum in grade 6 – “Vocabulary is contextual and influenced by emerging or changing conditions, including technology” is vague and can be interpreted as optional. 
  • In Math, the single instance of technology appeared in grade 5: “Create various representations of data, including with technology, to interpret frequency.”  
  • In the Science curriculum, the term technology appeared in the introduction and started to appear minimally in grade 2. The term technologies appeared starting in grade 3. However, the terms technology and technologies appeared most frequently in the grade 5-6 outcomes. Even in the science curriculum, we noted the ambiguous use. For example, in Science Grade 6, the term technology is used as part of a list (e.g., computers, coding and technology). 
  • Even though the term digital appears in over 130 instances throughout the documents, the term is mostly preceded by the term OR and can be interpreted as optional. For example, “use non-digital OR digital sources/texts” is commonly used in the English Language Arts curriculum. In contrast, a conceptual framework for emergent digital literacy from Australia used more precise language, “As we progress in the 21st century, children learn to become proficient readers and writers of both digital and non-digital texts” (Neumann, Finger & Neumann, 2017, p. 471). The Australian authors clearly emphasize the use of both digital and non-digital unlike the ambiguous wording currently used in the draft Alberta curriculum. 


Third, we are concerned that the use of coding in the curriculum suggests that computer programming skills are sufficiently integrated in the draft K-6 curriculum. While computer science is listed in the practical skills section, coding is simplified in the learning outcomes as a mechanical process that can be done with paper/pencil. When we searched the 273 pages, the word coding only appeared in 17 learning outcomes and all of these instances were found in the Science curriculum grade 5, 6. The integration of coding is limited to learning in one disciplinary area and is absent for younger learners. Where are the “algorithms, technology and engineering to design solutions to problems” evident in the learning outcomes? These omissions in the draft curriculum stand in direct contrast to contemporary research on the importance of coding and computational thinking for all learners worldwide.  Andreas Schleicher, OECD Director (March 22, 2019), asked “Should schools teach coding?”, and presents important questions about coding and computational thinking that need to be better considered in the Alberta K-6 draft curriculum: “How can we focus learning on the “essence” of a subject rather than the ‘mechanics of the moment’? It is fair to question how working code on paper in a modern age offers any value beyond rote mechanics.


Fourth, we argue the curriculum should include explicit focus on ethics and technology at every age. The word ethics only appears in 3 instances and all of these were in the Science curriculum, grade 5. Here’s one of our recent books regarding the importance of ethical use of technology in digital learning environments to support our argument for increasing the curricular focus in this area. As they engage deeply in accessing and contributing knowledge a digital world, Alberta students and teachers need to be engaged in conversations and inquiry into contemporary issues such as personal privacy, access rights, copyright, surveillance, and security. 


Fifth, there is limited and superficial reference to technology and digital competencies in this draft curriculum. We would have expected a new curriculum to build on or further develop the concepts and ideas in the Learning and Technology Policy Framework (LTPF) from 2013. The LTPF, Policy Direction 1 described the direction for technology use with students: “to support student-centred, personalized, authentic learning for all students” (p. 5) and this could have been a great starting point for developing a contemporary curriculum for Alberta’s children. Instead, this draft curriculum takes us back decades in failing to adequately consider learning technologies, digital literacy and digital competencies for Alberta children. 


We recognize this is an initial versus comprehensive critique of the relative absence of meaningful consideration of educational technology in the draft. We anticipate and welcome more commentaries and critique to emerge over the coming days and weeks. Based on our initial analysis, we argue the ministry needs to go back to the drawing board to design a contemporary curriculum that prepares learners for their digital futures and digital economies, instead of our pasts. We also encourage everyone to get involved in the public engagement and provide feedback on the draft K-6 curriculum presented in March 2021.


Schleicher (2019), OECD, leaves us with this call to action: “To determine what tomorrow’s students should learn, we must assemble the best minds in a given country – leading experts in the field, but also those who understand how students learn, as well as those who have a good understanding of how knowledge and skills are used in the real world. Such knowledge sharing will allow us to more precisely determine and regularly re-examine which topics should be taught and in what sequence – without succumbing to the temptations of the moment” (P 9).


Some of the best minds and leading experts in their fields across Alberta, and school, classroom and university experts who understand how children learn, are analyzing, questioning and critiquing elements of this draft curriculum; will the Minister of Education listen? Or, will she continue to succumb to the ideological and political temptations of the moment?

Note: This post is also available on Dr. Barb Brown’s blog 

Feel free to connect with us: babrown@ucalgary.ca and dmjacobs@ucalgary.ca  

Twitter handles: @barbbrown and @dmichelej

 

Monday, March 29, 2021

Advancing Faculty Development and Graduate Supervision Online: A Global Dialogue Forum (Brown & Jacobsen, 2021)

Overview of our global dialogue presented with Beijing Normal University on March 30, 2021:  In this session we discuss the challenges and opportunities for advancing faculty development and graduate supervision in online learning. We dispel myths about online learning environments and discuss how digital innovations provide possibilities for faculty and students to learn and connect globally. We also share our experiences with engaging pre-service, in-service teachers, and faculty in professional learning through an online pedagogy series and graduate supervision MOOC.

Presentation Slides - PDF

University of Calgary Links:

Werklund School of Education Graduate Programs, University of Calgary- https://werklund.ucalgary.ca/graduate-programs

 

Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning, University of Calgary – https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/ (open access learning modules)

 

 

Other Related Sources:

Brown, B. (2019). One-Take Productions for Student Feedback. Education Canada Magazine, 59(2). https://www.edcan.ca/articles/student-feedback/

 

Brown, B. (2020). Using Zoom to create weekly video message for students. 

http://www.drbarbbrown.com/2020/06/18/using-zoom-to-create-a-weekly-video-message-for-students/

 

Brown, B., Alonso-Yanez, G., Friesen, S., & Jacobsen, M. (2020). High school redesign: Carnegie unit as a catalyst for change. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy (CJEAP), 193, 97-114.https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/cjeap/article/view/68066

 

Brown, B., Burns, A., Kendrick, A., Kapoyannis, T., & Delanoy, N. (2020). Adapting to changing K-12 contexts during COVID-19: Teacher education perspectives. In M. K. Barbour & LaBonte, R., Stories from the field: Voices of K-12 Stakeholders during Pandemic, Canadian eLearning Network, pp. 63-68. https://sites.google.com/view/canelearn-ert/

 

Brown, B. & Eaton, S. E. (2020). Using a community of inquiry lens to examine synchronous online discussions in graduate courses. In L. Wilton, & Brett C. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Online Discussion-Based Teaching Methods (pp. 229-262), IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-3292-8

 

Brown, B., Jacobsen, M., & Lambert, D. (2014, May 9-10). Learning technologies in higher education [Paper presentation]. In P. Preciado Babb (Ed.). Proceedings of the IDEAS: Rising to the Challenge Conference, (pp. 25-43). Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, AB, Canada.http://hdl.handle.net/1880/50588

 

Brown, B., Roberts, V., Jacobsen, M., & Hurrell, C. (Eds.) (2020). Ethical use of technology in digital learning environments: Graduate student perspectives. University of Calgary [eBook]  https://doi.org/10.11575/ant1-kb38

 

Brown, B. & Vaughan, N. (2018). Designing group work in blended learning environments. In R. J. Harnish, K. R. Bridges, D. N. Sattler, M. L. Signorella, & M. Munson (Eds.). The Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning (pp. 82-97). Society for the Teaching of Psychology web site: https://teachpsych.org/ebooks/useoftech

 

Donovan, T., Bates, T., Seaman, J., Mayer, D., Martel, E., Paul, R., . . . Poulin, R. (2019). Tracking online and distance education in Canadian universities and colleges: 2018. Canadian National Survey of Online and Distance Education, Public Report. Canadian Digital Learning Research Association. https://onlinelearningsurveycanada.ca/

 

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework - https://coi.athabascau.ca/coi-model/

 

Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2013). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 18, 4-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003

 

Irvine, V. (2020, Oct 26). The Landscape of Merging Modalities. Educause Review, 4. 

https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/10/the-landscape-of-merging-modalities

 

Jacobsen, M., Friesen, S., & Lock, J. (2013). Strategies for Engagement: Knowledge building and intellectual engagement in participatory learning environments. Education Canada. https://www.edcan.ca/articles/strategies-for-engagement/


Jacobsen, M., Brown, B., & Lambert, D. (2013). Technology-enhanced learning environments in higher education: A review of the literature. Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, 
(80 pages).http://hdl.handle.net/1880/52244

 

Martin, J. (2019). Building Relationships and Increasing Engagement in the Virtual Classroom. Journal of Educators Online, 16(1), 9-13. https://www.thejeo.com/archive/2019_16_1/martin

 

Mazur, A., Brown, B., & Jacobsen, M. (2015). Learning designs using flipped classroom instruction.Canadian Journal of Learning Technology, 41(2), 1-26. https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26977  


Note: This post is also available on Dr. Barb Brown's Blog

Feel free to connect with us for more information:

babrown@ucalgary.ca and dmjacobs@ucalgary.ca  

twitter handles: @barbbrown @dmichelej