Reflections on VOLT

As I wrap up the VOLT program, it's time to ask the question: Do I think differently about online and blended learning?

In some ways I do. I feel that I have a much better repertoire and toolkit for engaging in these two forms of learning. The VOLT program has provided a lot - a lot! - of information on best practices, case examples, and methods that will hopefully lead to further teaching success for all of us in the program.

In some ways, I feel the same as before the program.  This is not a bad thing. I know there are endless possibilities for learning when technology is involved. And by endless, I mean a level of dynamic learning that is hard to comprehend at the moment. I still feel this way even after the VOLT program. This is a good thing because it will keep me pursuing that "next level" as I move forward as an educator and researcher.

I am excited about this upcoming academic year and the opportunity to infuse a few things I learned from VOLT into my teaching. I don't want to overdo it, however, because that may be too big of a shift to handle at once. 

One very underrated thing VOLT helped me with is being more comfortable with video recording myself speaking!  I think this is a key piece to the online and blended learning puzzle; providing that face to face interaction through online video. I always found it kind of awkward to record myself through a laptop! But we had to do it a couple of times for this program, and then had to participate in the online synchronous sessions. This actually helped me feel more comfortable with being "on-air" through video recordings and live sessions. So I'm looking forward to doing a bit more of this for the upcoming year. 

All in all, the program was definitely worth it. I said in one of my Google Plus posts that it is the perfect complement to the Master's program I recently completed (Learning Science & Technologies). I feel like I have more applicable knowledge to tie into the theoretical background I developed in graduate school.

Why I Probably Won't Use Personalized Learning

This may not be a popular statement, but I don't know how much - if any - I'm going to try to personalize the learning for my students this upcoming semester. I know of the benefits we've read about and heard about in the videos.  But personalized learning goes against my approach to teaching.  I like what comes from the camaraderie and collectivity of the classroom setting, and believe that learning is strengthened as we try to learn as a group (I'm included in the group, by the way). Some people want to move ahead, so they will help others who lag behind a bit (and as we know, we also learn when we teach!). Although I usually try to keep in mind what career goals or even course goals my students have, I usually don't personalize the curriculum based on those goals (I just keep those goals in mind as I have individual discussions with them through the semester).  

I am fully on board with blending the learning more this semester, but I can't quite buy into the personalization of the learning.  That is because there are certain things I think are absolutely important each students gets  even if they don't quite get the material. Some of those things include gains in critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, self-confidence, writing, and presentation skills. The best way for me to facilitate this is to look at my class as a team (that I coach and guide) rather than as a collection of individuals. 

Again, this may not be the most popular way to go.  But I believe in it because I think there's power in the collectivity enabled by a classroom setting. I just can't subscribe to dismembering that collectivity in favor of personalized learning - at least not at this time.

Between Pedagogical Approach and Teacher Ability - Learning Environment Design

I very much appreciate the work of the Clayton Christensen Institute on blended learning.  Christensen's book, "Disrupting Class" is one of the books that sparked my interest in educational and learning technologies.

This past week's resources in VOLT were very helpful in figuring out the phenomenon of blended learning, especially the models that the Institute have put in place (Station, Rotation, and Flex).

What's most important is that these models give teachers some kind of guidance of what it looks like to integrate this emerging pedagogy into their own practice.  It is important that more straightforward models such as these are designed and distributed.  This always goes back to my view that learning environment design is one of the most - if not the most - important educational tools in this age of technology.  

Station, Rotation and Flex are blended learning models that dictate the design of the learning environment.  The videos this week give us a few samples of how these models could look in practice; but showing all of the possibilities would take forever! In professional development opportunities in K12 and higher education, how often do we stay at that point - the point where we have a pedagogical approach, and need to meticulously consider the structure and organization of our space to translate that approach into student engagement and learning? From what I've been a part of and what I've seen and heard,  normally that part is skipped and the focus is on the pedagogical approach and then the teacher's ability to leverage the approach. 

Pedagogical Approach -----------> (      ) --------------> Teacher Ability

That gap in between is where we need to spend more time! It should look more like:

Pedagogical Approach -----------> Learning Environment Design to integrate approach -----------> Teacher Ability

The biggest thing for K12 education in the next few years is teacher education in higher education programs. Will we spend the necessary time with them dissecting what it means to configure a classroom a certain way, so that using models such as Station, Rotation, Flex, or anything else with any pedagogical method will be leveraged in the most efficient and effective matter? 

Integrating Blackboard versus Blending it!

I enjoyed Jen Jonson's video on technology integration versus blended learning. The framework is one that I will revisit frequently as I return to teaching this Fall.

In particular, I'd like to do a better job of blending Blackboard into the learning experience.  Although Blackboard is an online component, which falls in line with what blended learning encompasses,  I have some work to do to make it feel more blended into the overall learning experience of my courses.

Right now, I would say that I've mainly integrated Blackboard into the experience of my courses.  As Jonson says, this is not a bad thing.  It has been great as a tool for sending announcements to the class, depositing course material, and even prompting responses to questions.  But I will use more careful planning to dynamically blend what happens on Blackboard better to the flow of what happens in the classroom.  Figuring out ways to replicate some of the activities in the classroom would be good,  along with making sure that these online activities stem from, and feed into, those classroom activities.

So this year perhaps I will add video content to extend instruction of what is discussed in the classroom.  Instead of just giving a question where students answer within a discussion thread (that ends up having very little interaction between the students) I will think of better ways to facilitate small-group interaction on Blackboard (perhaps split the students into small cohorts or teams that have to interact more substantively). Also, it would be helpful to set the tone the first class by stressing that the interaction on Blackboard is integral to the continuing learning experience of the class.

I think I'll be able to engage in this approach at least adequately due to what I've learned in the VOLT program. It will be exciting to see how things work out.

On Personal Learning Networks

I could probably do a better job of solidifying a personal learning network for myself.  This could work for me in two ways - on the teaching side as an adjunct professor, and on the administrative side for my communications position at Penn.  Luckily I have engaged in professional development (trainings, VOLT) to help me with both.  But I seem to struggle with engaging in a learning network beyond designated professional development arrangements.

I have been getting more involved on Twitter so I believe this will be the tool I use the most once VOLT is done.  There is so much rich information on there.  I have been focused on exploring hashtags, but over time I hope to connect with other adjunct professors and higher ed administrators to share knowledge and development.

The chats on Twitter are very intriguing.  As mentioned in the Whitby article (referencing the story of an educator who went from unconnected to connected) there are all sorts of small anxieties that keep me from getting immersed in the activity, such as, "Will people pay attention to what I say?" I think the VOLT program is helping me to put those anxieties to the side and engage.

I think it's wonderful that technology has opened the door for educators of all types to learn from each other.  I look forward to putting this into more practice as I continue my professional career.

The Drawback of Adaptivity; The Speed of Edtech

I have mixed feelings about adaptive learning.  The software I've checked out have nice, game-like feeling to them. I especially liked Dreambox. I can imagine that these applications are, at the very least, enticing to youth due to the interactivity and such.

Yet I take pause when considering the concept of adaptivity. Of course it sounds rosy- the software adapts to your skill level as you go along.  If you're not doing so well in a certain area, it will focus on that so you can get better.  Yet I can imagine that this could actually limit learning for some.  There were many times when I did not get a concept in school, but only when I went ahead to the next concept or the one after did I gain further understanding of the previous concept.  I use this thinking when I teach; I usually have a strong belief of the level I can get each student to, and try to push them toward that level. I consistently make links between current lessons and prior lessons to try to fill any blanks and solidify understanding. I do not necessarily base this on any previous work they've done.  I put more of the pressure on myself to get them where I think they should go, with solid understanding, by keeping them moving while stressing the ongoing connections between everything we learn.

If adaptive learning personalizes the learning according to what your students have done before and how they've performed in the past, I'm not sure if such a thought process could be used.  It seems you could get students to be really solid at everything, but maybe not truly exceptional at certain things, if you use adaptive learning.  Am I off with this?

The NYT and Audrey Watters articles reaffirmed something I've been thinking a lot about lately.  While the data issues themselves are big, what's more troubling is how technology is moving too fast for education.  I don't think this is education's fault; at the end of the day, I think it all comes down to money.  Everyone seems to have the answer to solve all of education's "problems."  And then they create a tool to try to address this. And through that tool, they push forward their platform and agenda.  So all of the adaptive learning platforms are pouncing on the notion that adaptive learning is the way to go.  It could be, but we don't really know!  But companies are flourishing because of the speed at which edtech is moving, which creates a competitive marketplace. Education tries to catch up, creating more problems and more people with their idea of the solution. 

After my years in GSE, and now in VOLT, I almost think we need to just go back to just teacher, students, paper and pencil, and good books (not textbooks haha).

The Online Learning Environment is a Monster

Great posts this week from my cohort colleagues Alli and Michael.  To sum it up: Good teaching is good teaching.  From our readings we are given some recommendations for online teaching and many, if not all, can be applied to the face-to-face classroom.

I think the biggest challenge with online teaching comes from the monster that the online learning environment is.  It's too unpredictable.  Too many factors can affect the quality of the class:

• What kind of computer is everyone using? What is the processor speed?
• What kind of internet connection is everyone on? Are there other computers on their network (which slows the bandwidth)?
• What internet browser is everyone using? Does it need a plug-in?
• What settings on these browsers specifically support the online learning platform that is being used?
• What tools need to be shared, and how does each specific learning platform support the sharing of these tools?
• Is my laptop charged?
• Is there enough light in the room so people can see me on video?
• Is my microphone off?
• Is my microphone on??
• There are technical difficulties. What do we do?

All of this is just a sample of the challenges that the online learning environment brings to the table, and this is even before we talk about the teaching and learning!

So my question is, is it possible for all of these challenges to intersect with our good teaching to provide even better teaching experiences? If we have a student online, and their laptop dies, and then they come back to the course - is there a way to overcome that as a teacher so that the student feels like they haven't missed a beat in regards to the learning experience? We can plan for all of the unpredictability of the online learning environment, but is there a higher level of flexibility and adaptability we should be pursuing so that the "monster" brings out the best in all of us?

Why Not Online Learning for Chores?

I believe that when discussing online learning, we have to look at a bigger picture for the students that is not so dictated by an academic educational lens. For much of my studies regarding online learning, I have been part of a discussion that is looking at how to put material that would have been studied in an academic space (classroom, school) into effective online learning environments. This thinking may actually be holding online learning back.  

By default, online learning has now taken learning out of the physical context and into the digital. This means that if I want to learn something in an organized manner, I do not have to do so inside of a school's classroom.  But this also means that there is potential to learn just about anything, at any time in an organized manner, if someone designs an online learning experience for it. This means that organized learning could be fostered through the lens of all dynamics of life, not just the academic educational dynamic, through online learning. 

Online learning is a tool that has expanded the concept of organized learning itself.  Because of this, if we talk about online learning for our students in regards to their academic education, shouldn't we also discuss how online learning can be used in other aspects of their lives?  Wouldn't this give us a more complete picture of the power of online learning? In higher ed, we could discuss how online learning can be used in residential life, career services, student affairs, and more. In K12, why not talk about how online learning can be applied in parent-child relationships, and neighborhood socialization? (and not just social media).  And why not talk about all these things as their own distinct learning opportunities, that need their own research, but actually complete the role online learning plays in the life of a student?

As I read through this week's reading I couldn't help but think these thoughts.  It would seem that my sentiments lend themselves at least in the realm of connectivism as fleshed out earlier in the course and within Kop's article.  I particularly look at "Connectivists advocate a learning organization whereby there is not a body of knowledge to be transferred from educator to learner and where learning does not take place in a single environment; instead, knowledge is distributed across the Web, and people’s engagement with it constitutes learning" (p. 20).  Here we see that there is reference to the fact that learning does not take place in a single environment, but is instead distributed across the web.  I agree. Where my thoughts intersect with this theory is how I believe that in the real world, there is knowledge distributed everywhere. A student's knowledge is received and interpreted in many different real-world contexts, and those contexts are interconnected only in that student's life (because it's his or her life!).  If these contexts are interconnected, how can we expect that student to fully embrace online learning in one aspect (academic educational content) if they never have to do this for their learning (or what we usually call "growth" and "maturity") in the other aspects?

In reading the article by Mishra and Koehler, I realized that we spend so much time trying to figure out teacher frameworks for online learning, that we miss the opportunity to create general frameworks that would allow anyone, anywhere to further foster the online learning experience for students. So a student would use online learning to learn something about Math as taught and designed by her teacher; but then that student would use online learning to learn more about how to do her chores as taught by her parents. Then she could do an online learning module, put together by the block captain, that allows her to get to know the people that live on her block better.

I'm not advocating that we always spend our time in online learning, but there seems to be so many ways we can use it to expand our learning in all aspects of life. Yet we are so focused on the academic education part of things that we may be limiting what we can truly do with this powerful technological emergence. Because we are in a world now where learning is everywhere, instantaneous, continuous, and on-demand, it has become difficult for me to imagine researching and discussing online learning in education without thinking about the other aspects of a students' life where online learning could also be applied. 

My undergraduate major was Sociology.  I believe this blog post was the Sociologist in me crying out!

Scaffolds & Literacies

The readings this week talked about scaffolding and the literacies of today.  Scaffolding is important when discussing literacy; I remember as a kid how teachers used to walk us through the alphabet letter by letter, and through stories word by word.  Over time, they gave us the space to decipher these letters and these words on our own while still providing support.  Finally, we reached our goal of learning how to read on our own, entering into the world of literacy (this same process applied to our ability to write).

As we enter into this digital age where the application of literacy has expanded beyond pen and paper to include digital tools and such, scaffolding will continue to be important. And although I've always been a proponent for the "single human agent as the scaffold" approach, I recognize through Tabak's article that we have reached an age where scaffolding can - and most likely should - come from a variety of sources to accommodate a variety of learners.  The key is that the scaffolds need to be carefully designed.

Transitioning to the articles specifically talking about literacies...the Leu et al. article frames the skills needed today to successfully navigate the plethora of information and information sources available  as "new literacies." I see where they are coming from, however, much like my cohort colleague Bryan Kurnish, I'm not quite on board with this.  The idea of literacy has not changed, but rather, the avenues of which we have to gain literacy has diversified.

The Thompson article brings up some great points in this regard.  In particular, data interpretation and visualization is probably one of the most important emergences of this digital age.  We've had data visualization throughout the years, but more and more it seems to be reaching the point where this is a part of everyday life.  And through this data visualization, we are able to make educated guesses of what to do next or what approach to take. This is in education and beyond.  So the capability to be literate in the reading, interpretation, synthesis, and analysis of data is increasingly important for everyone and not just researchers.

This  is a reason why I did my video project on Google Analytics. I think it is so important for students today to know how to interpret this type of web analytical data. More than likely they will create a blog or website for school or out of school.  Knowing how to interpret web analytical data will help them to create the most effective websites to truly communicate the message they are trying to send.  

Video of Online Tool: Google Analytics

For our video assignment, I chose to talk about Google Analytics and the benefits of it for students who are creating websites for class.

Module 2: Week 3 - The Problem of Scale and Adaptability

Responding to one of our discussions on Canvas has made me realize a great problem we face in education is scale and adaptability.  Our readings this week, especially Dr. Kafai's, dove into learning perspectives based on the notion that the construction of knowledge is not just a one way street (instructionism). Perspectives that support learning models such as a constructionist approach, a learner-centered classroom, or social learning carefully consider the complex nature of learning and knowledge development.  By all means I am supportive of this. Yet I do also see where the issues come to play.

An instructionist approach is easy to scale, and can easily be adapted for audiences of all types. The lecture given to a 10-person class in Philadelphia can be given to a 100 person class in Los Angeles if needed.  Just stick someone wise in the front of the class, have enough seats (or not) for students, and away we go!

However, a learner-centered classroom has to consider the learners themselves, their experiences, etc. That would seem to get more difficult as the numbers in the classroom goes up.  Constructionism and the idea of constructivism are awesome (and so vital to a lot of what I believe in when discussing the future of learning).  But getting everyone, for example, access to software that facilitates these theories, or Lego blocks, or whatever, and keeping things structured and organized, also seems to be something that would be more difficult as the numbers go up. Finally, although social learning has lent itself to scalability through social media and other digital tools, the Weigle article (p.12) points out several pitfalls of this growth such as the majority dominating the vocal few, and challenges stemming from collaboration. Again, as numbers grow, these problems have to be considered.

But when thinking about straight-up instructionism, a lecturer can talk to hundreds of people, get the lesson out there, and as long as he can be heard through some type of audio system, the deed is done. Did everyone get it? Likely no.  But those in favor of sage-on-the-stage can focus on how at least the knowledge was "put out there" for everyone to obtain.

So I do hope that over the next few years we take all of these marvelous forms of teaching, learning and pedagogical strategies/theories and create best practices for scalability, adaptability, and ultimately, sustainability.  Those are strange words to use when discussing the classroom, but until we figure this out a bit more, the tried and true "sage on the stage" instructionist approach will reign supreme.

Reflections: Module 2, Week 1 - The Focus on Rethinking

The different time frames of the three pieces made for an interesting connection. Collins and Halverson's article is situated more so during the beginning of this current peak of new technologies in the classroom (as a side note, their book is one of the most influential books I've read regarding my career and interests).  It is fascinating to see how much things have changed since this article was published.  For instance, when they mention computer-based learning environments, there's no mention of MOOCs because these courses were nowhere near mainstream at this time. Also, technical certifications are described as a new phenomenon in this article, and now they are everywhere from certifications, to verified certificates, digital badges and more. 

The Horizon report is situated in our current time. A tie to Collins and Halverson's article is the need to consider the fundamental shift in the dynamics of teaching and learning - otherwise labeled as rethinking.  What's most interesting here is that 5 years have past between the two works, and an emphasis on rethinking is still present.  Where I'm going here is the thought: Because technology moves so quickly, will we always be in a state of "rethinking" teaching and learning? Will we ever (again?) be satisfied with the teaching and learning dynamics that are we are presented with?  Should we ever be?

There's an aspect to the emergence of technology - particularly the Internet - that I think is brilliantly addressed in the "Digital Life" article.  Paul Babbitt's assessment of how people will want a more structured and regulated internet down the road is very interesting.  Right now, we are in an era of open: open resources, open courses, and more.  This has been a benefit of the freedoms granted within the online space.  Personally, I enjoy the freedom to integrate digital media and such from around the world into my lessons in creative ways. 

However, if the openness of the Internet ever gets to a point where the general public really feels at risk of some sort, regulations may be welcome and actually demanded in some cases.  If this happens, I wonder what effect that would have on us rethinking teaching and learning at that time.  Would the pedagogical creativity that is currently being granted in some schools be looked down upon? Would we finally reach a point where we're satisfied with where we are in the realm of teaching and learning? Would rethinking turn into retreating? I guess we will see.

What I learned from Module 1

My biggest take away from Module 1 actually came from observing Justin Schwamm's lecture earlier this week. I'm glad I got a chance to see it since I have been unable to attend the previous lectures due to commitments. 

The way he handled all of the different elements of teaching a synchronous online session was fascinating to watch.  It was clear that he knew what he was doing and had great command of the method.  I especially liked how he integrated various documents, such as the Google Doc that we as a class interacted with.  

I would love to have such command in the online space in the future. The other day, when I finally recorded my intro video for the class, I realized that I felt strange at times looking straight at the camera. It was a little bit intimidating looking right in the camera and talking with full confidence, so I had to record at least 3 do-overs. I'm wondering if, in the transition to teaching online, there's a period where you just have to get used to the strange feeling of talking to a computer screen while being seen and heard by a number of people at the same time.   

What I realized from watching Justin's lecture is that it would probably be a good idea for me to see more examples of online instructors in action.  Not necessarily take their courses, but observe some sessions to see different styles and methods. Before seeing Justin's approach, I hadn't even imagined doing such things in online teaching.  So seeing different styles would help me see even more of the good things that are possible in this mode of teaching.

The Future Classroom

What will the future classroom look like?  I really don't think, in general, it will look much different than what it looks like today.  While I'm sure we'll see the integration of more technology on a widespread basis, the basic structure (room with seats and a general area for a head of instruction to stand) will still reign supreme.  Change takes time.  A lot of time.

For me personally, I think my face-to-face teaching in ten years will be similar to how it is today with one exception.  I think I will devote more of the class time to dissect the online activities I assign. I believe that the blended component of my teaching will increase, and the online component will be significantly more vital to the overall discussion in class.  This is because the digital space will continue to be increasingly integral to the identities of the younger generation.  As  such, the ideas, thoughts and mindsets that are spurred by online activity (but wouldn't necessarily be spurred in a face-to-face setting) will need to be critically examined during face-to-face time.  If not, the potential to create an even more powerful learning experience in the classroom may be lost.

In the limited teaching opportunities I had five years ago, I took on more of a mentor/coach approach.  These days a little bit of coach comes out every now and then ("You can do it!") but I'm much more systematic in trying to get my students to the learning goal.  I also did not use a blended approach, whereas now I'm not sure if I could imagine teaching without going in that direction.

Photo Story - Our pet bird

Our assignment this week is to create a photo story.  For my subject I choose to look at the time my wife and I have had so far with our pet bird, Scoop.  He (or she... we don't know if the bird is a boy or girl yet, but I'll just refer to Scoop as a he for now...) is a cockatiel aged at about 8 months.  The bird is a true joy with lots of personality!

Here is Scoop soon after we got him in December.





Looking back at this picture, I can't believe how little he was!

Scoop is a pied-pearl cockatiel.  The crest on the top of his head indicates his mood.  Right now he is curious and excited.

In the beginning we had a lot of trial and error with Scoop in terms of how to arrange his cage.  We did our research before getting him and we knew that he had to have toys to play with!

He chewed through these toys within about a week!  Cockatiels love to chew, so replenishing the cage with toys is always on the to-do list. 

In the early days with us he was pretty clumsy in the cage.  The bird store that we bought him from allowed him to walk around an open space, so he had to get used to being in a cage.

We made sure (and make sure) to play with Scoop outside of the cage every day. He's been a really good bird from the start and very nice to us. There were some times he was a bit nippy at us, but as time goes by he's gotten very comfortable with us.  As a result we've been able to do more with him outside of the cage.

These days Scoop has gotten pretty big and can really navigate his cage well!

He jumps around, interacts with everything, and climbs all over the place in there.

But he still loves to be outside of the cage, so we make sure to give him that time.  We just got him a cool playgym that he loves.























He still chews almost anything!  









So it has been a wonderful experience watching Scoop grow.  Cockatiels can live for up to 20 years so hopefully we have many more years together with our little friend!

To close, the video below shows him "beak grinding," which is something cockatiels do when they are relaxed and in a good mood!

Participatory Culture

This week's blog prompt: Are you currently fostering a participative culture [in your teaching]?  Tell us how, or how you would like to.  What are the benefits?  What are the challenges?

The videos this week were extremely helpful as I move forward with teaching.  I'll talk about two experiences I'm currently involved in: as Faculty Supervisor for cooperative education at Holy Family University, and as Instructor of the 'Intro to Educational Entrepreneurship Seminar Series' that started yesterday for Penn GSE students and alumni.

The Cooperative Education role is primarily online.  I guide and advise several Communications majors as they complete their required internships.  This role is actually what made me realize that I needed a program like VOLT.  I am used to teaching within 4 walls and having an almost eerie command of every inch of the learning environment.  It's really an incredible zone that I fall into.  However, when the class is primarily online, that kind of command is not available or possible, and I have to gain in other ways.  

In the Intro to Education Seminar Series, which is 99% face-to-face, I feel like the learning environment is a big ball of clay that I can mold into something awesome.  This allows me to intentionally foster a participatory culture within the seminar.  For example, there were several times where I split the participants into groups and had them share their thoughts and brainstorm with each other.  This allowed plenty of space for the participants to learn from each other and even teach one another if applicable.  We do have one online component, a Google Doc where participants can list resources that would be helpful for everyone regarding the topic. This is easy to manage since it's only one online component, and I can clearly see how successful it is (or isn't).

However for the Cooperative Education role I sometimes get a bit anxious because I am not sure of the most efficient and effective way to foster that participatory dynamic. The students have been (and are) great but I would like to do the best job possible setting them up for a high level of success. We use Blackboard, the students are indeed blogging, and I have them working on their Linkedin pages. Still, I'm not sure of how to facilitate and foster a high-level, organic participatory culture within this online dynamic like I've been able to do in my face-to-face teaching.

Which is why, again, I'm really glad I'm in this VOLT program!

Online Teaching and Learning

The most important reason to understand online teaching and learning is because of the opportunities that the online space affords.  I believe we have only begun to scratch the surface of how we can construct dynamic learning experiences using online technology.

We can interact with people from different countries, cultures, and more.  We can learn at nearly any time, and almost any place.  But I don't think we've really figured this online "thing" out yet.  The phenomenon is too recent.  There are great things that can result from online teaching and learning, but we're not sure how to get there yet.  Thus, it is important that we keep analyzing and examining this space, so that we can develop a fuller understanding of what truly is possible when we shift from the physical classroom to the online realm.

The Return!

Marcus.edu returns!  I am now enrolled in the Penn GSE Virtual Online Teaching (VOLT) certificate program.  This is a great opportunity to learn more about online teaching and learning - which as you may know, I feel is very important for the future of education.  We will be regularly blogging for the course. Exciting!

Let's get started.