Visualizing and Storytelling “Invisible Knowledge”

Digital teaching and learning has been a focus of research for several years. Some common topics in the literature include include effective digital teaching practices (Garrison, 2019; Oregon State University Ecampus, n.d.; Quality Matters, 2016), thoughtful models for initial training for faculty (Baran & Correia, 2014; Cochran & Benuto, 2016; Meyer, 2014; Northcote et al., 2015), frameworks, criteria, and guidelines for supporting faculty in building their digital teaching capacity (Baran & Correia, 2014; Mohr & Shelton, 2017; Picciano, 2017), and readiness to teach online (Callo & Yazon, 2020; Hung, 2016; Martin et al., 2019). Research centered on learning design and design methodologies are emerging as forefront topic in practitioner spaces including design strategies and elements (Martin et al., 2021), design principles, processes, and praxis (McDonald & West, 2020), learning experience design (Dalziel et al., 2016; Laurillard & Ljubojevic, 2011), and curriculum mapping tools (Dodd et al., 2019; Quintana, 2018). 

Some of the questions that we have found most interesting ask about the “how” of digital teaching and learning -- how do faculty learn or come to know what they know? How does their institutional context influence that learning? How do faculty approach the design process and what guides their thinking and design decisions? To explore these questions, we find methods of visualization and storytelling becoming relevant. Qualitative methods, particularly those promoting participant voices and visualization methods, are finding a place in many fields (Benito et al., 2017; Fawns, 2022; Kortegast et al., 2019; R. M. Quintana & Tan, 2021). Sanders (1999) suggests expanding the common methods we use to examine online teaching practices such as surveys and interviews in an attempt to define methods that examine human experiences in deeper forms, specifically how people come to know what they know, how people do things, and surfacing what people know, feel, dream of, create or make.

    This workshop is interested in exploring methods and tools that incorporate visual and storytelling elements such as maps, drawings, photographs, videos, and others that can be used in research and practice to elicit tacit knowledge that was once “invisible” and make these explicit for the purpose of analysis, information sharing, or documentation.  The workshop facilitators will lead four parts to engage the audience in interactive conversation:

Part 1: What are we  looking to understand

• What are the participants’ research questions? Why do we need a new way to explore them? What opportunities do the methods we are using bring to our research and broader implications for the field? What is “invisible knowledge?”

• Activity (Padlet/Google slide): Participants will go through a mini-exercise of creating and analyzing visual data. A reflection on the experience will follow.

Part 2: Presentations of specific methods/techniques 

• Examples include: visual lesson blueprints, concept mapping, and other examples from the field

Part 3:  Implications of using these methods

• Discussion points: What are the underlying values/paradigms of these methods? Who controls the information/story? How do we capture the implicit/invisible knowledge that occurs within a process?

Part 4: Open discussion on challenges and takeaways

• Discussion: What questions could you answer with these methods? What are the advantages or challenges in using them? What’s next for practitioners and researchers in our field? 

• End workshop: Participants identify an application area to take with them beyond the session.

References:

Baran, E., & Correia, A.-P. (2014). A professional development framework for online teaching. TechTrends, 58(5), 95–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0791-0

Benito, B. de, Lizana, A., & Salinas, J. (2017). Using concept mapping for faculty development in the context of pedagogic frailty. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 9(3), 329–347.

Callo, E. C., & Yazon, A. D. (2020). Exploring the factors influencing the readiness of faculty and students on online teaching and learning as an alternative delivery mode for the new normal. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(8), 3509–3518. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080826

Cochran, C., & Benuto, L. (2016). Faculty transitions to online instruction: A qualitative case study. The Online Journal of Distance Education and E-Learning, 4(3), 42–54.

Dalziel, J., Conole, G., Wills, S., Walker, S., Bennett, S., Dobozy, E., Cameron, L., Badilescu-Buga, E., & Bower, M. (2016). The Larnaca declaration on learning design. In J. Dalziel (Ed.), Learning Design (pp. 1–41). Routledge.

Dodd, B., Gillmore, J., & Southerland, S. (2019). The Innovation of Learning: Visualizing Transformative Learning Environments. Institute for Learning Envrionment Design.

Fawns, T. (2022). Cued recall: Using photo-elicitation to examine the distributed processes of remembering with photographs. Memory Studies, 17506980211073092. https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980211073093

Garrison, D. R. (2019). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Online Learning, 11(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v11i1.1737

Hung, M.-L. (2016). Teacher readiness for online learning: Scale development and teacher perceptions. Computers & Education, 94, 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.012

Kortegast, C. A., McCann, K., Branch, K., Latz, A. O., Kelly, B. T., & Linder, C. (2019). Enhancing ways of knowing: The case for utilizing participant-generated visual methods in higher education research. Review of Higher Education, 42(2), 485–510. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0004

Laurillard, D., & Ljubojevic, D. (2011). Evaluating learning designs through the formal representation of pedagogical patterns. In Investigations of e-learning patterns: Context factors, problems and solutions (pp. 86–105). IGI Global.

Martin, F., Bolliger, D. U., & Flowers, C. (2021). Design Matters: Development and Validation of the Online Course Design Elements (OCDE) Instrument. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(2), 46–71. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5187

Martin, F., Budhrani, K., Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Roles and competencies. Online Learning Journal, 23(1), 184–205. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i1.1329

McDonald, J. K., & West, R. E. (2020). Design for Learning. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id

Meyer, K. A. (2014). An analysis of the cost and cost-effectiveness of faculty development for online teaching. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 17(4), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i1.389

Mohr, S. C., & Shelton, K. (2017). Best practices framework for online faculty professional development: A Delphi study. Online Learning Journal, 21(4), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1273

Northcote, M. T., Gosselin, K. P., Reynaud, D., Kilgour, P. W., & Anderson, M. (2015). Navigating the learning journeys of online teachers: Threshold concepts and self-efficacy. Issues in Educational Research, 25(3), 319–344.

Oregon State University Ecampus. (n.d.). Online Teaching Principles. Retrieved July 4, 2021, from https://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/faculty/standards-principles/online-teac...

Picciano, A. G. (2017). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online Learning Journal, 21(3), 166–190. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225

Quality Matters. (2016). Online Instructors Skills Set. https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/teaching-sk...

Quintana, R. (2018, February 23). Using Chart Paper and Sticky Notes to Bring Curriculum Design into Focus. Center for Academic Innovation. https://ai.umich.edu/blog-posts/using-chart-paper-and-sticky-notes-to-br...

Quintana, R. M., & Tan, Y. (2021). Visualizing Course Structure: Using Course Composition Diagrams to Reflect on Design. TechTrends, 65(4), 562–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00592-x