#phdchat, Learning Technologies

CFP: Emerging Technologies for Online Learning Conference #et4online

The 6th Annual International Symposium for Emerging Technologies for Online Learning (#et4online) from April 9-11, 2013 (Planet Hollywood Resort – Las Vegas, Nevada) wants YOU to submit a conference proposal. Proposals are DUE by 11 pm CDT on December 10, 2012

The Emerging Technologies for Online Learning International Symposium, a joint Symposium of Sloan Consortium and MERLOT, is designed to bring together individuals interested in the review and evaluation of emerging technologies’ impact on online teaching and learning.

The 2013 Emerging Technologies Symposium chairs know technology for learning is shifting quickly:

“New discoveries in technology happen rapidly and far too frequently. It is difficult to keep up with every new release or innovation.  Advances in technology often become the vehicle for new ways to learn or enhance learner opportunities in our classrooms. As educators we progress forward, gaze back, and aim to bring the best of old and new to create an optimal environment to our students. However daunting this mission is, we tackle the problems and learn best from those who are already building the bridges and taking on the tasks we want to try. The field is advanced by those who share, scrutinize, and study. We invite you to contribute to the progress by presenting and attending this year’s symposium and encouraging your colleagues to join our efforts.” 

The #et4online steering committee is interested in interactive sessions that engage and inform participants for the following areas:

  • Higher Education and K-12 Faculty
  • Future professors and graduate students
  • Educational technology leaders
  • Students
  • Instructional designers
  • Instructional technologists
  • Academic administrators

Sessions can be targeted to all attendees and or specified (novice, intermediate, or expert) levels of proficiency. The committee would like to see a wide range of involvement from various presenters/facilitators – this includes proposed sessions from graduate students TOO!

The #et4online symposium will accept presentations that offer attendees “real solutions,” pioneering practices, and future trends, specifically submissions which emphasize evidence-based practice and the impact of topic tracks on teaching practices and student learning outcomes using a range of research methodologies (e.g. case study, longitudinal comparisons, within group comparisons, quasi-experimental, etc.) and rigorous approaches to the analysis of supporting data, qualitative or quantitative. Here are the #et4online symposium tracks and research areas:

Here is the presenter FAQs and Webinar Recording from 11/29  to help you with your proposal submission: 5 Tips on How to Submit a Successful Conference Proposal

There will be a wide range of emerging technologies for online learning trends, talks, sharing, and more! What happens at #et4online in Vegas will NOT stay in Vegas. And that’s a good thing! Follow @et4online for more updates as well!

LPQ

Published: Learning and Performance Quarterly 1(3)

The third issue of the Learning and Performance Quarterly (LPQ) speaks to the area of facilitation, teams and mobile support systems. This issue discusses theoretical building blocks for researchers that have a renewed interest in teams and their support. The reemergence of this area of study is important as we move further into the age of social media, personal learning networks and global information exchange. Thank you to our authors, editors, and peer reviewers for their contributions to the Learning and Performance Quarterly, Volume 1, Issue 3.

The Learning and Performance Quarterly (LPQ) is an online, open access peer-review journal designed to make research available to the public and to support a greater exchange of global knowledge. The call for submissions for 2013 is now open – here are the deadlines for manuscripts for Volume 2:

Submission can be made online through the LP Quarterly website. For detailed submission guidelines and instructions on how to make a submission please visit Author Guidelines.

Happy reading,

Laura A. Pasquini & Dr. Jeff Allen, Founding Editors
Learning and Performance Quarterly
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter @LPQuarterly
Email: LPquarterly@gmail.com

#phdchat, ATPI, PhD, Professional Development, Reflections

ATPI Doctoral Portfolio Reflection

This weekend will involve the usual researching, writing, and editing of projects – however I have one more item to polish up before it’s time to be thankful in the U.S. – my doctoral portfolio.

For the Applied Technology & Performance Improvement Doctorate (ATPI) program, the doctoral portfolio is a new requirement for us young, budding scholars. Rather than sit in a room for two 8-hour days or respond to a set of questions over a period of time, ATPI doctoral students will need to complete our departments Ph.D. portfolio to officially become a Doctoral Candidate and move forward with dissertation work. Some students in our program are still opting to take the comprehensive exam route while they still can, only because the requirements include research, teaching, and service scholarship experience that is akin with academics who might be seeking tenure/promotion. I think that this portfolio makes sense, professionally it helps to document my PhD Journey and encourages students to gain scholarship experience before being launched into a dissertation or even the academic job search.

Here are the ATPI Doctoral Portfolio Requirements [DRAFT] that I have been using to guide my portfolio development. {I say draft as this document is subject to change since our department will have myself and another student defend in December for the 1st time.}

I promise to share my ATPI doctoral portfolio, after I review it and put the finishes touches on it. I learned a great deal from our “dry-run” on Friday, and I was reminded about some of the key things to highlight in my 15-minute presentation. I am also pleased to say that I will be sharing my digital PhD journey (blogging, tweeting, and then some) with my doctoral committee for my portfolio defense. My faculty advisor and another committee member thought it would be valuable to discuss my philosophy and experience as an open educator/scholar/researcher.

In thinking about how to “show case” some of this, I am looking through my blog for musings and what I have been up to over the last 3 years of my doctoral course work. So far my TechKNOW Tools Wordle reflects this:

TechKNOW Tools Blog Wordle

I also know that my digital footprint can be found in my Google Docs (or now Drive), YouTube channel, Dropbox, shared on my SlideShare account, posted on my Flickr account in photos, and even among my  23, 926 tweets (good thing I auto-send these into Delicious with hashtags for easy searching). Time to mine my own digital data, review what I’ve created, and compile my professional development and scholarship.

Grad Students & PhD Friends: How do you track your progress? Professional development? Teaching, service, and research scholarship? Please share!

astd, MGMT 6860, Needs Assessment, Training, UGST1000

Learning Goal Orientation & Motivation with Course Delivery Modes

Determining the course delivery mode for learners is important. Learning goal orientation (LGO) delivery modes can either enable or create barriers to motivation to learn and course/training outcomes. Have you thought about how the technology-enhanced instruction is supporting or challenging your learners? I have been thinking about this a great deal this semester as I weave face-to-face meetings in my seminar session with online/blended/connected projects and assignments.

Klein, Noe, and Wang (2006) conducted a quasi-experiment with 600 undergraduate students to compare blended learning and classroom delivery in three consecutive, ten week terms over the course of a full academic year. Unlike other blended learning or classroom comparison studies, the authors aim was to understand why or under what conditions one method may be more effective than the other and identify variables based on motivation theory to investigate how and why blended learning may be more effective than classroom instruction.

A Conceptual Model: Motivation for Learning Goal Orientation (Klein, Noe & Wang, 2006)

This model integrates training motivation theory, which is based on the Colquitt, LePine, and Noe (2000) meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of training research and Brown and Ford’s (2002) input-process-output (IPO) model of learning.

Klein, Noe, and Wang (2006) tested the following hypothesis in their study:

1)      Motivation to learn – predictor of course outcomes and is influenced by both individual and situational characteristics (Colquitt et al., 2000; Noe, 1986; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992).

2)      Instructional characteristics – reduced motivation in distance learning courses include distractions and interruptions; level of interaction among the learners and between the instructor and learners, and increased learner control over the pace of instruction based on self-determination theory (Gange & Deci, 2005).

3)      Learner characteristics – LGO chosen can have a strong effect on learning and the allocation of effort during learning (Fisher & Ford, 1998); interest in the strongest and most consistent relationship with motivation to learn and course outcomes; challenges may encourage some learners to persist while be a barrier for other learners

4)      Perceived barriers and enablers – can impact motivation to learn and influence transfer of learning; attitudes examines towards use of new technology and availability of personal/technical support

5)      Course outcomes – goal to have robust positive relationships between motivation to learn and course outcomes that impact the cognitive learning (Kraiger,  Ford & Salas, 1993) and effective learning goal orientation (LGO)

6)      Mediating role of motivation to learn – expected relationships between the IV (delivery mode, LGO, and perceived barriers and enables) and the DV (course outcomes); specifically Sitzmann et al. (2006) found that blended learning was 13% more effective than classroom knowledge for teaching declarative knowledge, whereas White (1997) found distance learners engaged in greater metacognition than classroom learners; Other mediators: constraints, lack of choices, self-regulated learning, varied learner motivation

While reading this article for the training and development section of my HRD seminar, there are some limitations to comparing undergraduate learning to training – but this piece did present some interesting findings and suggested research for the future. Here are the results shared by Klein, Noe, and Wang (2006) from this study:

  • Learners in the blended learning condition, learners high in domain-specific LGO, and learners who perceived external features as enablers rather than barriers had higher motivation to learn
  • Barriers/enablers partially mediated the effects on LGO on motivation to learn
  • Motivation to learn was significantly related to course satisfaction, metacognition, and course grades
  • Motivation to learn mediated the relationships between the delivery mode, metacognition, relationship between LGO and course grades, and perceived barriers/enablers and course satisfaction

 

References:

Brown K.G. & Ford J.K. (2002). Using computer technology in training. In Kraiger, K. (Ed.).Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development (pp. 192–233). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Colquitt J.A., LePine J.A., &Noe R.A. (2000).Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology85, 678–707.

Gagne, M.& Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 26, 331–362.

Klein, H.J., Noe, R.A. & Wang, C. (2006). Motivation to learn and course outcomes: The impact of delivery mode, learning goal orientation, and perceived barriers and enablers. Personnel Psychology, 59, 665-702.

Kraiger, K., Ford, J.K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311–328.

Sitzmann, T.M., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D.W., & Wisher, R.A. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623–664.

Tannenbaum, S.I. & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399–441.

White, C.J. (1997). Effects of mode of study on foreign language learning. Distance Education18, 178–196.