Evaluation of an Open Course Site
http://oyc.yale.edu/english/introduction-to-theory-of-literature
Open Course websites are course offerings available online entirely free for anyone with internet access to take (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009). These courses allow any person, anywhere with technology access to expand his/her mind without the financial cost. These Open Course sites truly are distance education at its purest form. Distance education is supposed to allow education to spread (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009). With free classes, education can disperse at rapid speeds. While these classes are a good way to gain extra knowledge and are somewhat effective, there are drawbacks to the design of these classes. Unfortunately, while the concept of these classes is great, there are some downfalls. First of all, the general public is probably not aware of these open classes since I was unaware of them until now. So, for these classes to truly reach the public, they need to be better publicized. Secondly, students who take these classes need to be completely intrinsically motivated since there is no college credit or financial incentive to take them (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009). When looking at the design of these Open Course classes, there are some considerations the designer needs to think through: Does the distance learning environment seem pre-planned? Does the online course seem to fit the suggested design for distance learning? Does the designer implement course activities that maximize the active learning for students? In order to answer these questions, I will use a Literature Open Course from Yale.
The course I selected is an online Literary Theory course taught by a Yale professor. The course is applicable to my Honors 12 classroom because I teach Literary Theory to my Honors 12 students, and the lenses the professor is teaching is Deconstruction, which is one on my hardest lenses to teach because students do not often understand the concept. I was drawn to this class for that reason; if the classroom at Yale is good, then I would use it in my classroom at school. The platform for delivery is fine for this Open Course. The website it clean, neat, and easily maneuvered. Yale offers almost any subject matter a student could be interested in, and it is all easily accessible. Once I was in the actual classroom, I found text readings that I would need to borrow from a library if I wanted to access them. Having the course reading available probably supplements the in-class learning that the students are doing. This is effective for them since it could aid in their understanding. However, for someone entering the site who is not part of the class, it could be a hindrance to the learning since the text is not readily available. Since most students do not learn just through reading alone, this might not be the most effective delivery method for the 21st century learner (Seckel, 2007). To help that type of learner, the site tries to give technology options. The site offers the audio and video of the actual lecture. This is helpful for those who learn better through auditory and visual means. However, the lecture was lost on me, and I teach deconstruction in my classroom. The information referred quite heavily to the course text and required the learner to follow along with complex concepts. The lecture video does not aid in the learning either since it is just the professor moving back and forth while he lectures. Also, the site does not add any other activities such as practice or quizzes to see if the learner understands.
With all of these elements in mind, it seems that Yale pre-planned this instruction; however, it is not designed to keep the learner engaged. Learners can see that Yale pre-planned the website because the site is neat and organized. The Yale pre-planning most likely centered around how to get this information out as reinforcement to the class, and then they decided to make it an open course. Therefore, this course probably did not consider the needs of the general learner, only the needs of those enrolled in the class (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2009). With this lack of consideration and the general remedial feel of the site, Yale did not probably think past reinforcement for its objective. With all of the emerging technology that could be used such as podcasts, discussion boards, and interactive videos or quizzes, the Open Course lacks its full potential for delivery (Beldarrain, 2006). However, the lack of interactivity is most likely due to lack of funding (Beldarrain, 2006). Why would an institution, especially as prestigious as Yale, spend time and money on terrifically and expensively designed free courses? The basic Open Course site that Yale offers is sufficient for an intrinsically motivated learner who is willing to look for extra information and learn on his/her own. The Yale Open Course is also good for reinforcing the face-to-face classwork. However, as a stand-alone learning environment, it is difficult to say that this is a well-delivered design.
Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student
interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153.
Seckel, S. (2007). Characteristics and responsibilities of successful e-learners. Journal of
INSTRUCTION DELIVERY SYSTEMS, 21(2), 22-26.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a
distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment