Individual Post #1

Photo retrieved from Jamcampus

After reading three articles, I am impressed by the first article “Learning is not a mechanism”. Stommel (2018) states that digital learning is not focusing on using digital tools. I agreed with this opinion. Pedagogy is more important than technology. It is unnecessary to compare which technology is better for study. I think technology is more like a learning tool to help students engage in class and is convenient for instructors to deliver learning materials. We need to mention the way how instructors convey knowledge to students, how students learn effectively, and how do they interact within the class.

Education should focus on teaching rather than assessment. This sentence is true, but if without grading, how can instructors evaluate students? It is unavoidable to assess students’ learning outcomes in an objective way. However, instructors and educational managers should create the learning objective and course outline more flexible. Students have various personalities and learning habits; hence instructors may adjust the assignments and projects based on these varieties. Digital pedagogy such as Moodle, Zoom facilitate education in ways of spreading and accessing learning resources. Students can interact and communicate with instructors on online-forum. Educational professions can not only utilize the advantages of digital pedagogy but adjust learning design to promote “learning is non-mechanism” purpose.

The second article discusses the blended learning, which includes face-to-face and online learning. Blended learning contains innovation in pedagogy and technology, applying in higher education. Innovation is the process to rethink and redesigning one’s idea to fully engage in learning activities. In other words, innovation increases the engagement in blended learning and to reinforce thinking and discourse. Personalized thinking and discourse are symbols of higher education purposes in the context of the Community of Inquiry (COI). Three key presences in COI are cognitive, teaching, and social. Cognitive is described as an ability to construct a statement/opinion in the process of rethinking and redesigning. Teaching is associated with learning design and success, while social related to the open environment. 

Principles are essential to cope with technology-based education. Chickering and Gamson (1987) concluded seven principles in undergraduate education, which cooperated with the teaching presence to inspire students with responsibilities and more educational experience. However, these principles mainly focus on the traditional education model, usually applied in lectures and face-to-face classes.

Regan and Jesse (2019) point that ethical challenges in personalized learning programs. Six ethical concerns should be identified: information privacy, anonymity, surveillance, autonomy, non-discrimination, and ownership of information. Student’s interactions with the program address the greatest information issues in personalized learning programs. Compared with blended learning, personalized learning faces more ethical issues in terms of using computer programs. With the increasing use of edtech and big data in school, parents and instructors should pay more attention to inform students about disclosing personal data through the internet, and governmental professions should enact related laws to regulate the safer online learning environment.

Reference:

Stommel, J. (2018, September 12). Learning is Not a Mechanism. Retrieved July 7, 2020, from https://criticaldigitalpedagogy.pressbooks.com/chapter/learning-is-not-a-mechanism/

Vaughan, N. D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Garrison, D. R. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. Edmonton: AU Press.

Regan, P.M., Jesse, J. Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning: twenty-first century student sorting and tracking. Ethics Inf Technol 21, 167–179 (2019). https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/10.1007/s10676-018-9492-2