Reply by Wanda on October 15, 2008 at 10:28pm

Hi Brian, I really like the sounds of this open access model. If we can collaborate on course development – or on learning object development, then we could have a rich collection of Alberta curricular information to use in the variety of ways that you have mentioned (in the classroom, at home, as enrichment, as review, in online courses, etc.) This information could benefit students, teachers and parents, especially if these learning objects can be edited by Alberta teachers (ideally it would be great to expand this to all Western/Northern Canadian Protocol members).

This open access would then, hopefully, encourage funding from various sources since so many different people could benefit from the material. I wonder if this would end up saving money since we are not all independently working on similar material.… Would the funding from this come from school divisions (all divisions, or the ones involved in the creation, or the ones involved in the use), would funding come from Alberta Learning, or from some other source? However it happens, I think you raise a very important point about open (free) access for teachers, students and parents.

Reply by Debra Stone on October 19, 2008 at 4:32pm

Yes I believe you have hit the right note here. As a multi-course classroom teacher, I always seemed to be just trying to get through the curriculum and did not have time or a budget for the frills like hands on multimedia projects or applications, What an incredile difference this would have made in my classroom, being able to set one course up with a meaningful independent technology rich (or media rich) resource, while I focused on teaching the other course would have meant far less frustration for myself and my students.

When Alberta Education spends money on resource development, it should be openly accessible to all Alberta teachers and students. I agree with Wanda, in the end this could be a money saver for everyone. It seems archaic to have each little group developing their own material, when we are supposed to be fostering 'collaboration ' in our students.

Reply by Jennie Van Hooft on October 20, 2008 at 8:46pm

Brian, the idea of universal access to all resources developed with Alberta Education appeals to me. Although our school has not developed any on-line resources, additional access has the possibility of opening endless doors for Alberta students.

In order for this to work, however, we need to take it one step further. Virtual schools across Alberta have invested considerable time and resources into the development of their programs. To a virtual school, each course is as valuable as any unique school program or course. Therefore, should traditional teachers and schools require be required to develop and post their own unique on-line courses? It would be extremely beneficial to have courses (I believe that's what you're referring to above) available for students from teachers/schools with expertise in special education, the arts, the sciences, sports, various religious beliefs, etc..

Even as I write this, I know that "requiring" development is contrived and too simplistic. However, virtual schools need to be recognized for their groundbreaking work, starting the foundation for Distributed Learning options. They've provided a valuable option to Alberta students. Simply taking everything they've developed, often by trial and error, and making it available to any school wishing to use it could destroy many of these schools.

There has to be a better way.

Reply by Louise on October 21, 2008 at 10:48am

Simply taking everything they've developed, often by trial and error, and making it available to any school wishing to use it could destroy many of these schools
To whom does this belong? Who paid for the developlement - at the end of the day is it not AB Ed? Does this not mean it it is the property of the province? Why should each individual teacher be required to 'reinvent the wheel'? Each partner should contribute/adapt/develope material to enrich thier core material delivery to suit each unique mix of learners. Modeling the 'collaboration learning' we want to see in our 21 Century learners, will send the strongest learning message to our students and move visions like DL into practice.

Universal open access will allow facilitators to best utilize their prep time thereby freeing up time for face to face, one on one contact with learners. Our 21 Century learners are 'fully wired' but still have the basic need for one on one - even more so than in the past. Increased access, to options/enrichement in learning, streamlines the background work and frees up our teachers to continually share the passion of learning in all modes, even if some formats are not in that particular facilitators area of expertice. To not have the the drudgery and frustration being bogged down in self limitations. Would also allow for the districts with geographical and programming/staff challenges to still maximize the learning opportunities for its learners.

Going forward, it is the results of true teamwork with access to the global group resourses, in my opinion, that will shape the sucess of DL.

This 'ownership'' issue came up in another disucssion.
See under Resource Development for DL
One of the most difficult responsibilities assumed by our current Distributed Learning providers is the complex task of “resource develop...
Started by Brian Shields in Defining Our Key Success Pillars

Reply by Susan Crichton

Brian,
Thanks for starting this discussion thread ... this is a topic I'd like to explore further ... especially issues related to copyright and ownership ... might we be smarter to design within the Creative Commons, recognizing the value of editing / re-purposing without the traditional sense of ownership?

This issue has really been bugging me since Dr. Gail Kopp and I did a piece of research for Alberta Ed concerning Learning Objects and the need for teachers to have access to the individual pieces so they could edit, modify, re-use as needed ...

Reply by Shelley Friesen on October 21, 2008 at 3:09pm

This is a great discussion.
As always in Alberta we end up talking about ownership of materials. No one wants to carry the burden of cost for materials developed for others to benefit from, just as no one wants to do all of the work for others. But in the end, if we actually collaborate, materials will be developed by countless teachers and thus be the 'property' of as many.
So a virtual school offers the materials it has to teachers in regular classrooms. The teachers use what they can and will likely adapt it according to their students' needs. In turn, this adaptation is shared with the original course provider. If many teachers use the course material, you will have many suggestions and adaptations, all of which are shared with the others involved. Then the final product (not that it would ever actually be final - this process is never-ending) would be so rich that all will benefit equally. The student benefits the most, undoubtedly.
In regards to Alberta Ed paying for development, sometimes the cost was paid through funds alloted schools and thus are no more property of the government than textbooks purchased in the same way. We all know that teachers preparing for course delivery spend many hours just gathering or creating course material and the bulk of these hours are beyond the official 'paid' time. We need to acknowledge the work done by the 'pioneers' of this type of education, but to with hold the materials is not conducive to addressing student needs.
For years I have heard about the fear that on-line education will supplant traditional schools and now here I see there is thought that the opposite might be true. The fact is that the two types of education exist because neither one meets the needs of all students. However, the two can come together and create a well rounded course delivery that meets the needs of the various students, both on-line learners and tradtional model learners. Added to that is the dynamic that parents can access these materials; this is icing on the cake. Now they are not separated from their child's learning. What a future our students can have!

Reply by Brian Shields on October 23, 2008 at 9:42pm

I agree Shelley, this is a great discussion ... excellent insights from everyone ... and thoughtful questions. I think that the benefit of this dialogue is that it allows us to identify these concerns and explore possible ways of addressing or at least understanding them. To this point I see a common perception that resources should be openly accessible to students, parents and teachers. Where we seem to run into some concerns, as many of you point out, is in identifying ownership of the resources, compensation for the resource developers and obligations assumed by those using the resources. Is there a "better way"?

I wouldn't presume to speak for the online virtual schools, however, I do know that the current demands for course development to meet the expectations of new curriculum implementation have stretched the online community to the limit. Collaborative course development has become essential and, as you point out Wanda, the benefits are very evident - the results are richer and "everyone saves money" because we do not have a duplication of course development in each of our online schools. Jennie, you raise a significant question regarding compensation to virtual schools for the course development that has taken place to date ... is there a way that we can recognize this? I think that most virtual schools have come to appreciate the fact that course development is an ongoing process rather than a static one ... it seems that we never really have a finished product ... because it is an ongoing process, it is also an ongoing expense.

As you point out Shelley, the students, parents and, I would add classroom teachers, are ultimately the beneficiaries of opening up access to these courses and learning objects. I like your ideas regarding the opportunity for classroom teachers to adapt the materials and share their new materials back ... perhaps in a wiki or in some other collaborative format. I also agree with Wanda's comments that the resources need open so that teachers can edit or modify them to meet the unique needs of their students. We all benefit from this kind of open access and open collaboration.

As Louise points out, there will always be a need for "one-on-one" ... for all courses to be delivered and supported by a teacher, and there will continue to be a need for virtual schools to support students in DL settings. What additional barriers do you see standing in the way of supporting open access to these learning resources in both of these essential learning environments? If there are no other barriers, why haven't we witnessed this kind of open access before now?

Reply by David Abma on October 27, 2008 at 10:27am

In regards to Alberta Ed paying for development, sometimes the cost was paid through funds alloted schools and thus are no more property of the government than textbooks purchased in the same way. We all know that teachers preparing for course delivery spend many hours just gathering or creating course material and the bulk of these hours are beyond the official 'paid' time. We need to acknowledge the work done by the 'pioneers' of this type of education, but to with hold the materials is not conducive to addressing student needs.

When virtual schools began to post online courses ten years ago, there was slight remuneration for these courses, but in the past years, online resources were created in the same way as teachers prepare daily lesson plans: after school, after supper, or just before breakfast, and on weekends - all at no cost to the gov't or local school. Ab Ed has never paid for development of our local school's online environment .

And it should be noted that, from my experience, teachers who teach online or in a virtual environment may have developed excellent skills on how to be an educator in these environments, but most know very little about the technology they employ, or about web course development, or regarding best practise of online course development - that's why the collaborative model that DL is suggesting is an exciting option for all teachers - whether in the brick and mortar school or in a virtual environment.

Reply by Marilyn Steier on October 27, 2008 at 2:56pm

Opening doors beyond classrooms is a reality with the internet and video conferencing. The Acquisition of resources is a huge question since everyone seems to be doing their "own thing"...and how do we share...who takes responsbilitity?

An idea that was presented to me was that we should have a site set up like e-Bay where you can post your Project/Lesson Plan/Assessment....Then people can go on-line and rate it and also use it. There does not need to be an ownership (copywrite) as the site would be meant for sharing and ultimately supporting students. Created by Albertans for Albertans

Right now many teachers are developing their own material.

A question comes to mind with "Approved Resources". Is that important? In my mind a teacher is a trained professional who has a responsibility to deliver the curriculum. Is it not their responsibilty to choose resources? How do you approve resources when you are accessing global resources?

Reply by Distributed Learning Forum on October 27, 2008 at 4:59pm

Fabulous discussion topic and participation here! ... a topic near and dear to me as we attempt to build on provincial, collaborative, resource development projects/initiatives/processes :)

Although I don't think we have the right answer yet, it seems like we're moving closer and closer to it... As I consider the key success pillar for DL - collaborative coordination of standardized resource development and shared access, I am relieved to see that so many educators see the need to move to a flexible environment where resources are developed/modified/customized to meet the diverse needs of our students.

Overall, is it safe to say that we all agree to the need for a provincial approach to DL that will allow:
- open access to teaching and learning resources, all the while compensating those who are adding value
- shared/coordinated funding of the resource development process - 'cause no one single entity can do it on its own
- teaching and learning resources to be available in multiple formats - meeting the distance, home ed, and face-to-face classroom delivery/learning needs
- value-add being in the teaching and delivery - not the 'resource', therefore reducing competition for content
- the contribution/adaptation/customization of resources to meet diverse and individual teaching and learning needs

The complexity lies mostly within our own ability to break away from how we have developed and acquired resources in the past, as well as our perception that content and learning resources make up the 'course'. We've seen time and time again that the real value-add is within the teaching; the delivery; the engagement and interaction/relationships that are built between teacher-student-student... In my personal opinion, we need to focus collectively on our students' needs - and get past the notion content=value=competition.

Reply by Brian Shields on October 29, 2008 at 7:34pm

I agree with your insights DLF regarding need for a provincial approach to DL that focuses on open access, shared coordinated funding, customizable resources in multiple formats and the need for learning to be delivered and supported by teachers. Where I hesitate in supporting your position relates to the diminished role that you assign to resources and resource development. It takes a significant amount of time and effort to develop media rich online resources and lessons that engage and inspire our students. It is not sufficient to expect “readings and questions”, “drill and memorize”, text-based resources, or even “textbooks-online” to be an adequate solutions for our students … I think that we need to do more. I agree that the resources alone don’t make up the courses and that the role of teachers to provide what you refer to as the “value added” component is essential. However, I do believe that we have an excellent opportunity to create a model that supports the development of exceptional online resources to engage 21st Century Learners in DL settings and in our classrooms. It is important that these resources be openly accessible to all students, parents and teachers across the province – it is also vital that these resources effectively engage our students and support the integration of 2.0 technologies and skills.

Reply by Dr. Eugene G. Kowch on October 30, 2008 at 11:06am

Brian, I really enjoy your posts! You point out that in the knowledge age we'll have to consider new models for collaboration well beyond 'community' models today, particularly on the subject of DL. I like the way you focus on the personalized learner and teacher as well as on media (textbooks, technology) and real, genuine value-addition to the entire system as we consider DL here.

The work of the ARPDC so far shows that all kinds of new connections and partnerships within and across school sectors and the school community (and likely in the future, beyond that) will be needed, I think by what we see here in Ning as a sample (I love this environment they've put up). I did a recent study across Southern Alberta on mobility/learning and teaching innovation and found exactly this- that everyone (governments local and afar, learners, teachers, IT support systems and business partners like vendors) really want to hear what people want to do with Distributed learning. This makes Alberta quite special.

On your comments about systems (organizational, people-oriented and technology systems), I did a large study for Alberta Learning pre to the mobile initiative and found that learners, parents, teachers, administrators, school systems and vendors are ready for distance learning in their hearts - but that the degrees of (conceptual) separation between different settings so critical for us to really collaborate when we discuss complex learning environments that the conversation is tough to start (all levels of governance, schools, classrooms, teachers, communities). In other words what we're thinking of with advanced mobility and distributed learning realities in a province with one of the world's greatest reputations in K-12 education - might require that we need new models for envisioning what's possible.

What I am seeing by working on this with a national / global body on systemic change in school systems is that we (educators) may need to imagine different kinds of organization structures / networks and funding models so that, as Cindy Seibel so wisely taught me - we can imagine a completely integrated, perhaps shared service model where the necessity of some centralized features for DL along with decentralized features can work to really add value to kids, teachers, schools, districts, governance and our important vendor/technology related infrastructure partners. I guess you've really got me thinking Brian about how different a truly disaggregated learning possibility might be if we can imagine using the tremendous power of some governance, school system and even vendor partnerships where significant capital (human, $ and techno cap.) could come together across ‘traditional’ organizations for example.. more easily for the futures imagined here.

For example the (relative) freedom that desktop computing gave to us as teachers, administrators and governance folks changed the way we think about creating learning environments for children, teachers, parents and each other. When the net came about, we saw another level of integration possible between not only desktop computers but between everyone using them - Web 2.0 will continue this model in our minds.. but ahead of that (and that's what I am seeing possible here with this initiative).. what kinds of new and necessarily different relationships, infrastructures and governance innovations will help DL? Some of my research is telling me that a blend of existing instructional practice in classrooms, administrative praxis in staff rooms and plain and simple (future) learner preference will be powerful drivers in shaping how we collaborate in completely new ways. It's not just the cost or the flash of the technology at stake as some have said in other posts- it's a chance to take our learners to the world and our learning out there as well.. as one teacher reminded me .. distributed learning happens in some schools all the time, less in others.. how can we get ready to offer

Reply by Joan Coy on November 1, 2008 at 10:36am

I strongly agree with the importance to invest the significant time and resources to create media rich on-line courses. We have a wonderful opportunity to engage our students both on-line and in classrooms. We are certainly leaving the drill and kill days behind and need to build skills of problem solving and critical thinking in our students.Students need to construct their own learning and demonstrate their learning their way. Interactive labs, tutorials, simulations and animations help address the multiple intelligences and the availability to students 24/7 allows the student to spend as much time as they need to review concepts. Self checks allow the student to self assess and build their abilities to become more independent learners. The BCP courses collaboratively developed under the direction of Distributed Learning embrace the philosophy of social constructivism and give the student the opportunity for choice and to construct their own learning.Teachers using these materials still have the ability to 'personalize' the courses. I do not feel we can meet the needs of our students as well if we rely on each teacher creating their own materials - creating media rich on-line courses for the 21 st century learner requires a team approach.

Reply by Noel Jantzie Nov 1

A couple of quick points regarding ownership of learning activities in a You Tube world.

1. Students increasingly do not compare our course offerings to what teaching and learning was like in 1959 (the year I started school), but to what is available in the digital world right now. The "Twitter" generation drives the need to continually update our courses and our curriculum to remain current. I have heard that some of the course development that is currently being undertaken for DL delivery is expected to have a 10 year shelf life. Not bloody likely is probably the most polite reaction I can muster to that idea.

2. Education is a common endeavour, and it is part of our professional obligation to share techniques, instructional materials, and ideas. I don't think we can avoid the necessity for teachers to do course development. What we can do is to ensure that workloads accommodate this, and that sufficient resources are available to allow the production of high quality learning materials. Resources include technology, time, and expert support. As a teacher I don't need to become a multi-media maven with the ability to churn out a new five minute flash animation each day (frankly if I can do that, I may want to consider a career change). What I can do is offer the pedagogical and subject area expertise to describe what students need to learn, and what features in the animation will facilitate that learning.

3. What we bring to the table is our pedagogical knowledge and our ability to establish relationships with students that allow us to diagnose effective learning strategies, and help students implement them. This requires knowing who you are teaching, and relationship building has to be a priority in developing an effective DL program. That takes time and it places an effective limit on the number of students that we can contact or be responsible for in an instructional cycle.