Online Link: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=7&sid=1&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=16512&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1228256461&scaling=FULL&ts=1303908660&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1303908669&clientId=16512
In this week’s readings, Paloff and Pratt discuss something that all teachers should participate in; Transformative Learning. The authors use Jack Mezirow’s definition of this process, calling it “learning that is based on reflection and on the interpretation of experiences, ideas, and assumptions gained through prior learning” (pg. 185). This type of self-reflection should be something that all teachers learn to do on a regular basis, however, the authors caution that time needs to be provided for this type of growth. If time isn’t set aside, it cannot be expected that teachers will naturally go down this path. Additionally, Paloff & Pratt suggest that even if time is set aside, it needs to be consistent because transformative learning “is a vibrant, dynamic process that is typically not completed when a course ends” (pg. 186). The idea is to grow as a person and as a teacher through this process, not just to gain intellectual information. Again, the authors come up with a novel idea that is essential to developing into a superior educator. This may not be a familiar process at first. In fact, it may be what the authors call “disorienting”, which is a good thing. Being challenged is part of the process and results in personal and professional growth.
Susan Stansberry and Angel Kymes attempted to facilitate transformational learning by conducting a research study. In their study, they used required pre-service teachers to use “e-portfolios” as a method of self-reflection and personal growth. The fact that the portfolio was done online and not on paper was considered the “disorienting experience” and the researchers hoped this method would prompt increased transformation. The researchers also referred to Mezirow as the basis for their philosophies on transformational learning. In addition to the definition above, they added that Mezirow’s theory occurs in “stages of cognitive restructuring”. They add that this transformation can be “gradual or sudden and the individual moves through a series of stages in the cognitive restructuring and reconciliation of experience and action” (Kymes & Stansberry, 2007, pg. 489).
Reading Stansberry and Kymes’ study was helpful because it showed an example of technological transformational learning in practice. They attempted to use the technology as the disorienting experience, but were expecting cognitive transformation as a result. I don’t think that technology is always a disorienting experience at this point in time. People are becoming more and more familiar with it, but confronting anything new does challenge our current views and behaviors. The study also supported what Paloff & Pratt said about creating time for this transformation and not limiting the time to one hour; it should be done as a regular part of a school’s professional development plan. Over the years, the method of disorientation can change, but the concept of reflection and change should be constant. Again, such a simple idea that can produce big results. It’s a shame that more schools don’t see the benefit and simplicity of this idea.
References:
Kymes, A.D. & Stansberry, S. L. (2007). Transforming learning through “teaching with technology” electronic portfolios. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50:6, pgs. 488-497.
Paloff, R.M. & Pratt, K. (2007). Building Online Learning Communities. John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, CA.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
RSA # 4 - Teaching and Learning in Successful Online Communities
Online Link: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&sid=4&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=16512&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=2251162751&scaling=FULL&ts=1303397945&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1303397959&clientId=16512
In the reading this week, Paloff and Pratt suggest something very novel, but very important. They discuss the common misconception that transitioning from a face to face course to an online course involves “simply putting that course online without making many adjustments” (pg. 129). With many colleges, universities and K-12 classrooms adopting online learning communities of varying levels, it is extremely important to consider what is different about traditional learning and online learning. The authors state that “it is not the curriculum we are converting, but our teaching methodology” (pg. 130).
The roles of the teacher and the learner need to be reconfigured for an online learning community to be productive. Traditional teaching strategies and methods are out of place online. Instead of the class being one that is teacher-centered with the teacher “covering” material, the focus should be more learner-focused and the learner should be part of the facilitation process (Paloff & Platt,. pg. 105-106). In an online learning situation, teachers should consider themselves as “gentle guides” and not the main focus of the classroom (Paloff & Platt, pg. 110). Instead of traditional classroom expertise, online teachers need to learn to be comfortable with the technologies themselves, how to have an online presence and how to engage students in productive collaboration. In addition to being teachers, online educators are also the administrators of their online course.
The learners in an online community also have differing responsibilities. Instead of just coming to class and soaking up knowledge imparted by the teacher, students are expected to take an active role in their own learning. In fact, students are even expected to take a facilitative role in the online classroom. Additionally, “students should be expected to work together to generate deeper levels of understanding and critical evaluation of the material under study” (Paloff & Platt, pg. 120).
Our second reading this week is an evaluation of the status of online learning in the United States. The results of the national survey found that in 2006, “3 million [college and university] students are registered for a fully online course” (Picciano & Seaman, pg 1). While this information about colleges and universities was insightful, the group wanted to learn what role online learning was playing in K-12 schools in the United States.
In beginning this survey, the researchers found that there was much confusion in the world of online learning regarding the labeling of learning with technology. They found that schools were often confusing distance learning, online learning, virtual courses and e-courses, just to name a few. As a result of this confusion, simple definitions were established for “online”, “hybrid” and “web-facilitated” classes (Picciano & Seaman, pg. 2). Additionally, the growth of home-schooling also causes difficulty in data collection.
Once norms had been established and data could be collected, the findings of this survey were quite interesting, specifically the fact that “online learning in K-12 schools has increased more than tenfold in six years [and that this] growth will be sustained” (Picciano & Seaman, pg. 17)! Many concerns were raised as a result of gathered information, mainly about the quality of online instruction and the readiness of teachers in this environment. The fact that “about 25 percent of all K-12 public schools now offer some kind of e-learning or virtual school instruction” is cause for the concern presented. The government and school administrators need to make sure that online educators are prepared for the experience. Hopefully, teachers and teaching colleges are focusing on methods addressed in the Paloff and Pratt reading.
The supplementary resource used for this RSA discusses the creation of Virtual Physical Education classes in the K-12 setting. The article says that “educators and administrators are trying to find ways to reach the students who are dropping out, refusing to participate and want more academic choices” (Rhea, 2011). Research on distance physical education finds that “academic achievement pressures and high obesity rates are pushing administrators to consider the use of online learning and virtual schools for physical education credits” (Rhea, 2011). They postulate that students who obtain their physical education credits outside of school will have the opportunity to obtain more academic credits and will learn to focus on the pleasures of physical activities. Research also suggests that online physical education classes offer opportunities for students who miss school often to maintain their standing, offer more physical opportunities such as yoga or martial arts, which may not be offered in school and might encourage students who are insecure about their physical skill to improve in a more private setting.
As seen in the Survey of US School District Administrators, online learning is expanding every year. In order to keep up with this development, current and future teachers and administrators need to focus on the reality of how this change will affect schools. As stated in Paloff and Platt, schools cannot simply convert existing classes to an online format. Skills and strategies used in classrooms need to be adapted to an online environment. As demonstrated in the physical education article, online learning can be extremely beneficial and can offer solutions to some current, pressing educational issues. However, it is extremely important that this is approached in a proper, appropriate and aggressive manner. Money, time and resources need to be allocated on the local or federal level to make sure online learning is done right. If it is, the possibilities are endless!
References:
Paloff, R.M. & Platt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities, (pg. 105-155). John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, CA.
Picciano, A. G. & Seaman, J. (2007). K12 online learning: A survey of U.S. School District Administrators. Retrieved from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/K-12_Online_Learning.pdf
Rhea, D. (2011). Virtual physical education in the k-12 setting. Journal of physical education, recreation & dance; 82, 1; Platinum Periodicals pg. 5-6.
In the reading this week, Paloff and Pratt suggest something very novel, but very important. They discuss the common misconception that transitioning from a face to face course to an online course involves “simply putting that course online without making many adjustments” (pg. 129). With many colleges, universities and K-12 classrooms adopting online learning communities of varying levels, it is extremely important to consider what is different about traditional learning and online learning. The authors state that “it is not the curriculum we are converting, but our teaching methodology” (pg. 130).
The roles of the teacher and the learner need to be reconfigured for an online learning community to be productive. Traditional teaching strategies and methods are out of place online. Instead of the class being one that is teacher-centered with the teacher “covering” material, the focus should be more learner-focused and the learner should be part of the facilitation process (Paloff & Platt,. pg. 105-106). In an online learning situation, teachers should consider themselves as “gentle guides” and not the main focus of the classroom (Paloff & Platt, pg. 110). Instead of traditional classroom expertise, online teachers need to learn to be comfortable with the technologies themselves, how to have an online presence and how to engage students in productive collaboration. In addition to being teachers, online educators are also the administrators of their online course.
The learners in an online community also have differing responsibilities. Instead of just coming to class and soaking up knowledge imparted by the teacher, students are expected to take an active role in their own learning. In fact, students are even expected to take a facilitative role in the online classroom. Additionally, “students should be expected to work together to generate deeper levels of understanding and critical evaluation of the material under study” (Paloff & Platt, pg. 120).
Our second reading this week is an evaluation of the status of online learning in the United States. The results of the national survey found that in 2006, “3 million [college and university] students are registered for a fully online course” (Picciano & Seaman, pg 1). While this information about colleges and universities was insightful, the group wanted to learn what role online learning was playing in K-12 schools in the United States.
In beginning this survey, the researchers found that there was much confusion in the world of online learning regarding the labeling of learning with technology. They found that schools were often confusing distance learning, online learning, virtual courses and e-courses, just to name a few. As a result of this confusion, simple definitions were established for “online”, “hybrid” and “web-facilitated” classes (Picciano & Seaman, pg. 2). Additionally, the growth of home-schooling also causes difficulty in data collection.
Once norms had been established and data could be collected, the findings of this survey were quite interesting, specifically the fact that “online learning in K-12 schools has increased more than tenfold in six years [and that this] growth will be sustained” (Picciano & Seaman, pg. 17)! Many concerns were raised as a result of gathered information, mainly about the quality of online instruction and the readiness of teachers in this environment. The fact that “about 25 percent of all K-12 public schools now offer some kind of e-learning or virtual school instruction” is cause for the concern presented. The government and school administrators need to make sure that online educators are prepared for the experience. Hopefully, teachers and teaching colleges are focusing on methods addressed in the Paloff and Pratt reading.
The supplementary resource used for this RSA discusses the creation of Virtual Physical Education classes in the K-12 setting. The article says that “educators and administrators are trying to find ways to reach the students who are dropping out, refusing to participate and want more academic choices” (Rhea, 2011). Research on distance physical education finds that “academic achievement pressures and high obesity rates are pushing administrators to consider the use of online learning and virtual schools for physical education credits” (Rhea, 2011). They postulate that students who obtain their physical education credits outside of school will have the opportunity to obtain more academic credits and will learn to focus on the pleasures of physical activities. Research also suggests that online physical education classes offer opportunities for students who miss school often to maintain their standing, offer more physical opportunities such as yoga or martial arts, which may not be offered in school and might encourage students who are insecure about their physical skill to improve in a more private setting.
As seen in the Survey of US School District Administrators, online learning is expanding every year. In order to keep up with this development, current and future teachers and administrators need to focus on the reality of how this change will affect schools. As stated in Paloff and Platt, schools cannot simply convert existing classes to an online format. Skills and strategies used in classrooms need to be adapted to an online environment. As demonstrated in the physical education article, online learning can be extremely beneficial and can offer solutions to some current, pressing educational issues. However, it is extremely important that this is approached in a proper, appropriate and aggressive manner. Money, time and resources need to be allocated on the local or federal level to make sure online learning is done right. If it is, the possibilities are endless!
References:
Paloff, R.M. & Platt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities, (pg. 105-155). John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, CA.
Picciano, A. G. & Seaman, J. (2007). K12 online learning: A survey of U.S. School District Administrators. Retrieved from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/K-12_Online_Learning.pdf
Rhea, D. (2011). Virtual physical education in the k-12 setting. Journal of physical education, recreation & dance; 82, 1; Platinum Periodicals pg. 5-6.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
RSA #3 - Essentials for Professional Development
Online Link: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=2&sid=1&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=16512&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1738488361&scaling=FULL&ts=1302807251&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1302807256&clientId=16512
The readings this week were fascinating! They really showed me that the Professional Development that administrators think we need is not what we, as teachers really need! Perhaps to due cost and time restraints, PD in schools is usually generic, rather than specific to particular subject areas and levels of teaching. In the article Essential Information for Education Policy, several research studies support the idea that the most effective professional development is something that is specific to subject matter. The authors state, “Professional Development that is rooted in subject matter and focused on student learning can have a significant impact on student achievement (2005)”. Teachers learn best and are most successful in the classroom when they learn with people who teach the same content, plain and simple. This doesn’t seem like a crazy idea, but this does not happen very often. I realize that I am in a unique situation in that I teach a senior level elective with only one or two other teachers in a large department, however we rarely, if ever, get PD specific to Psychology. In fact, I would be part of the statistic in the article that says, “one national survey found that in nine of ten content areas, most teachers said they spent one day or less on professional development during the previous year.” I am lucky if I get a few hours of PD a YEAR specific to the teaching of Psychology to high school students.
In the article, On a Quest for New Discoveries: Effective Professional Development, the authors support the idea that Professional Development needs to be tailored for specific teachers, not only in same subject areas, but with teachers who are in the same situation. This article focuses on PD for English teachers, but the point is that teachers who got to spend time learning with other English teachers at the same level made the most strides in their effectiveness as teachers. One contributor states that, “it took the supportive learning community” of other English teachers to “unlock her potential” as a teacher. In my opinion, the most important quote from the article says, “As educators, we value and understand the importance of professional development that results in change”. This seems like common sense, but more often PD in schools feels like something to fill time or a requirement, rather than something that will foster real change.
All in all, research supports that for PD to be effective, it needs to be relevant. This means that it needs to be done in the content area and it needs to be done with people who are in the same teaching situation. Another component mentioned in both articles is that time needs to be dedicated to improvement. An hour here and there isn’t going to be enough. Schools and administrators need to dedicate realistic amounts of time to PD. Teachers want to get better. Teachers want to help their students be successful. Any chance given to teachers to accomplish these two goals will be taken. I wish that schools would find a way to reconcile budget and time constraints with what is really necessary and ultimately possible.
References:
American Educational Research Association (AERA). (2005). Teaching teachers: Professional development to improve student achievement. Research Points Essential Information for Education Policy, 3(1), 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED491587.pdf
Henkin, R., Harmon, J., Moorman, H. & Pate, E. (2009). On a quest for new discoveries: effective professional development. Voices from the Middle, 16 (4). May, 2009.
The readings this week were fascinating! They really showed me that the Professional Development that administrators think we need is not what we, as teachers really need! Perhaps to due cost and time restraints, PD in schools is usually generic, rather than specific to particular subject areas and levels of teaching. In the article Essential Information for Education Policy, several research studies support the idea that the most effective professional development is something that is specific to subject matter. The authors state, “Professional Development that is rooted in subject matter and focused on student learning can have a significant impact on student achievement (2005)”. Teachers learn best and are most successful in the classroom when they learn with people who teach the same content, plain and simple. This doesn’t seem like a crazy idea, but this does not happen very often. I realize that I am in a unique situation in that I teach a senior level elective with only one or two other teachers in a large department, however we rarely, if ever, get PD specific to Psychology. In fact, I would be part of the statistic in the article that says, “one national survey found that in nine of ten content areas, most teachers said they spent one day or less on professional development during the previous year.” I am lucky if I get a few hours of PD a YEAR specific to the teaching of Psychology to high school students.
In the article, On a Quest for New Discoveries: Effective Professional Development, the authors support the idea that Professional Development needs to be tailored for specific teachers, not only in same subject areas, but with teachers who are in the same situation. This article focuses on PD for English teachers, but the point is that teachers who got to spend time learning with other English teachers at the same level made the most strides in their effectiveness as teachers. One contributor states that, “it took the supportive learning community” of other English teachers to “unlock her potential” as a teacher. In my opinion, the most important quote from the article says, “As educators, we value and understand the importance of professional development that results in change”. This seems like common sense, but more often PD in schools feels like something to fill time or a requirement, rather than something that will foster real change.
All in all, research supports that for PD to be effective, it needs to be relevant. This means that it needs to be done in the content area and it needs to be done with people who are in the same teaching situation. Another component mentioned in both articles is that time needs to be dedicated to improvement. An hour here and there isn’t going to be enough. Schools and administrators need to dedicate realistic amounts of time to PD. Teachers want to get better. Teachers want to help their students be successful. Any chance given to teachers to accomplish these two goals will be taken. I wish that schools would find a way to reconcile budget and time constraints with what is really necessary and ultimately possible.
References:
American Educational Research Association (AERA). (2005). Teaching teachers: Professional development to improve student achievement. Research Points Essential Information for Education Policy, 3(1), 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED491587.pdf
Henkin, R., Harmon, J., Moorman, H. & Pate, E. (2009). On a quest for new discoveries: effective professional development. Voices from the Middle, 16 (4). May, 2009.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
RSA #2: An analysis of the psychology behind participation in online learning communities
Online Link:
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&did=1475971981&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1302027540&clientId=16512
“In distance education, attention needs to be paid to the developing sense of community within the group of participants in order for the learning process to be successful” (Palloff & Pratt, 2007). It may seem that Palloff and Pratt are stating the obvious, but paying close attention to how members of an online learning community interact is essential to the development and ultimate success of the group. Participants in online learning communities need to have a sense of community or connection to those that they learning with. This connection needs to be both educational and social. Collaborators should know each other both personally and professionally. Palloff and Pratt state that, “Forging social bonds has important socioeffective and cognitive benefits for learning” (2007).However, the authors do state that the group leader has a responsibility to monitor the participation of group members. The instructor should be an active participant in the learning community and should set expectations for levels of participation from other group members. “An online learning community cannot be created by one person” (Palloff & Platt, 2007). Clearly, the more people know each other, the more they will want to participate and the more successful and online learning community will be.
Researcher Shalni Gulati of Oxford University agrees with the author. She states that the old perspective in adult education was that “learners [were] to be passive recipients of knowledge” and that a newer, more Constructivist model of education positively challenges this assumption (2008). In her article, Gulati explores the practice of online learning and seeks a deeper understanding of choices made by learners, requirements set by teachers and the relationships of the online teachers and learners. Through her research, the author comes to some interesting conclusions. She finds that online learners to require some structure similar to a formal learning experience and that this structure does, in fact, normalize the learning process. However, the way that this desired structure seems to play itself out is through compulsory participation which “may result in learners who are either being increasingly physically or mentally absent” (Gulati, 2007). She states further that participants who are required to answer a specific set of questions or complete a predetermined assignment “demonstrated limited depth of understanding” and were just “playing the game” (Gulati, 2007). Not only does this defeat the purpose of education itself, but it can create a hierarchy within the class between teacher and student and potentially between students themselves. Gulati concludes that formal structure is needed in online communities, but that a more democratic and open type of learning may be better. She says that allowing learners or groups of learners to choose, negotiate and define discussion topics can help the learners take ownership of their learning and would lessen the historical hierarchical structure of education.
Both the authors of the text, as well as the author of the article agree on two things. First, they feel that leaders of online learning communities need to set guidelines for participation because this communication is the core of online learning. These communities will not be successful without the genuine collaboration of members of the online group and someone has to facilitate this discussion, at least at first. Second, all authors agree that this structure, while essential, needs to be flexible. Both works suggest that participants in these online communities need to take ownership of the community itself. In order for this to happen, the guidelines that are set need to be flexible and perhaps gradually become more student centered as the community grows and develops. The members of the online group need to feel safe and feel that they are equal members. If this equality can be manifested, true learning will take place, which is the goal of education itself.
References
Gulati, S. (2007). Compulsory participation in online discussions: is this constructivism or normalisation of learning? Innovations in education and teaching international; May 2008; 45, 2; Platinum Periodicals.
Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2007) Building online learning communities. San Francisco, CA; John Wiley & Sons.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=1&did=1475971981&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1302027540&clientId=16512
“In distance education, attention needs to be paid to the developing sense of community within the group of participants in order for the learning process to be successful” (Palloff & Pratt, 2007). It may seem that Palloff and Pratt are stating the obvious, but paying close attention to how members of an online learning community interact is essential to the development and ultimate success of the group. Participants in online learning communities need to have a sense of community or connection to those that they learning with. This connection needs to be both educational and social. Collaborators should know each other both personally and professionally. Palloff and Pratt state that, “Forging social bonds has important socioeffective and cognitive benefits for learning” (2007).However, the authors do state that the group leader has a responsibility to monitor the participation of group members. The instructor should be an active participant in the learning community and should set expectations for levels of participation from other group members. “An online learning community cannot be created by one person” (Palloff & Platt, 2007). Clearly, the more people know each other, the more they will want to participate and the more successful and online learning community will be.
Researcher Shalni Gulati of Oxford University agrees with the author. She states that the old perspective in adult education was that “learners [were] to be passive recipients of knowledge” and that a newer, more Constructivist model of education positively challenges this assumption (2008). In her article, Gulati explores the practice of online learning and seeks a deeper understanding of choices made by learners, requirements set by teachers and the relationships of the online teachers and learners. Through her research, the author comes to some interesting conclusions. She finds that online learners to require some structure similar to a formal learning experience and that this structure does, in fact, normalize the learning process. However, the way that this desired structure seems to play itself out is through compulsory participation which “may result in learners who are either being increasingly physically or mentally absent” (Gulati, 2007). She states further that participants who are required to answer a specific set of questions or complete a predetermined assignment “demonstrated limited depth of understanding” and were just “playing the game” (Gulati, 2007). Not only does this defeat the purpose of education itself, but it can create a hierarchy within the class between teacher and student and potentially between students themselves. Gulati concludes that formal structure is needed in online communities, but that a more democratic and open type of learning may be better. She says that allowing learners or groups of learners to choose, negotiate and define discussion topics can help the learners take ownership of their learning and would lessen the historical hierarchical structure of education.
Both the authors of the text, as well as the author of the article agree on two things. First, they feel that leaders of online learning communities need to set guidelines for participation because this communication is the core of online learning. These communities will not be successful without the genuine collaboration of members of the online group and someone has to facilitate this discussion, at least at first. Second, all authors agree that this structure, while essential, needs to be flexible. Both works suggest that participants in these online communities need to take ownership of the community itself. In order for this to happen, the guidelines that are set need to be flexible and perhaps gradually become more student centered as the community grows and develops. The members of the online group need to feel safe and feel that they are equal members. If this equality can be manifested, true learning will take place, which is the goal of education itself.
References
Gulati, S. (2007). Compulsory participation in online discussions: is this constructivism or normalisation of learning? Innovations in education and teaching international; May 2008; 45, 2; Platinum Periodicals.
Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2007) Building online learning communities. San Francisco, CA; John Wiley & Sons.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)