Skip to content
- The self-coding activity was completed by revisiting all of the previous posting and attempting to categorize each by evaluating against a phase of the practical inquiry model. The majority of the posting could be categorized as triggering events, exploration or integration. A few of he posting could be categorized as encompassing the resolution phase.
- The only dilemmas that seemed to be resolved concerned student feedback. Some clear and effective methods of incorporating good feedback into online courses was presented. And approaches to effectively use these techniques were presented as well.
- In a future course I would likely try to approach my postings more critically, looking to deliver more posting that code as “integration” and “resolution”.
- Self-coding isn’t a simple concept to understand (or teach), at least not using the terminology presented by Vaughan, Cleveland-Innes and Garrison (2013). Providing students with a simplified matrix and relevant examples might help convey the concepts behind self-coding. But it’s not clear to me that student self-coding is a useful exercise that leads to improved metacognitionon on the part of the part of the student. Not a productive use of student time in my opinion. But then I lean more towards the constructivist view of learning theory.
- WordPress as a platform was useful as an alternate mechanism for structuring information. If frees the writer from the more rigid structure of word processing software. It allows the writer to mix text, voice and video and to receive mult-media input from others. The WordPress platform does seem to encourage reflective learning although the technology is not all that intuitive to use. It will be interesting, both from a technology perspective and from an educational perspective as to what product will supersede WordPress? What will be the next big Web 2.0 software product for collaboration?