Open Educational Resources (OER) from prestigious institutions have better chance of sustaining itself for various reasons. First, it is much easier to publish their materials and have the public subscribe to it using their brand name. Comparatively, smaller institutions and start-ups would struggle with getting recognized, or even just being discovered, given their relative obscurity. Next, they would have a larger (possibly funded!) staff to develop and organize their content on a consistent basis, whereas smaller organizations may be updated less regularly due to work-hobby conflicts. A third point, also related to funding, is that larger corporations can channel funds from other avenues to help sustain operation costs of the OER such as the server equipment or buying materials/content rights.
Another issue with OERs that was mentioned in our discussion was suggested by Michael, where the material carries institutionalized colonial-era ideologies; that most of it was created by the global north and applied to countries in the global south (Paskevicius, 2019). This poses the issue whereby First Nation’s perspectives and traditions are being minimized while students study content from a settler’s viewpoint instead.
An interesting point which was brought up was how an OER could potentially begin is by local teachers pooling resources that they use to create a database within the school. It then grows into multi-school program through collaboration and contribution inside the district network infrastructure, and then eventually become a fully public OER. While this wouldn’t solve the issue of First Nation’s knowledge being specific to place (ie, the local environment), it would at least recognize their ways of knowing as it should be embedded within active teachers’ pedagogy.
Weller, M. (2018). Twenty Years of Edtech. EDUCAUSE Review, 53(4). Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2018/7/twenty-years-of-edtech
This article provides a summary of main innovations in Educational Technology (EdTech) starting from Wikipedia in the 1990’s toĀ Blockchains in 2017. The list can be thought of as potential tools for educators looking for to support online / blended classrooms, or to incorporate technology into traditional classrooms in meaningful ways. For instance, Open Education Resources (OER) or Web 2.0 would be a means to provide students with curricular material instead of print-based items which are easily forgotten or damaged.Ā What’s interesting to note are the more recent (within last 5 years) technology such as learning analytics (collection of student data to supplement learning or intervention), digital badges (which students can accrue as evidence of informal learning), and artificial intelligence (potential tutoring system). An important caveat to the innovations in the article is that their full adoption and integration into education is still a work in progress. In addition, their usefulness in the classroom is also open to debate.
What? What happened? What did you learn? What did you do? What did you expect? What was different? What was your reaction?
The article lists advances in technology over the last two decades which have the potential to be used for educational purposes. It was interesting to read through some of them and learn about newer ones like AI and Blockchain.
RSS: aware of its existence, but never tried to utilize it. Seems to be another well-intentioned, poorly executed idea that died off before it took off.
Blogs: seems to be the most popular option for post-secondary assessment or reading. It’s understandable as they tend to be more readable (less jargon or use excessive academic language), engaging (use of graphics or other media), or relate-able (use of humor, sarcasm, case-studies, etc).
LMS: utilized of platforms such as Blackboard, Canvas, and EBUS as a leaner. Yet never realized how much work is involved in the creation and operation of the LMS. For example, creating content such as quizzes, tests, rubrics, or lessons, as well as ensuring file cater to software (.pages or .word) or hardware (PC or Mac). I agree with how LMS have become the industry standard of well-executed distance learning format. a properly constructed, user-friendly system can make or break a course. Alternatives such as emailing assignments or reading instructions off a blog feels clunky, and has too many separate pieces which requires users to search high and low for information or documents.
“The Moodle sign” by 4nitsirk is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
Twitter & Social Media: while it seems to be more “open” in terms of accessibility and interactivity, much of it is still a toxic cesspool which demotivates individuals from participating (constructively).
“Never argue with an idiot. -George Carlin” by deeplifequotes is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
So What?Ā Why does it matter? What are the consequences and meanings of your experiences? How do your experiences link to your academic, professional and/or personal development?
The summary of currently available tools and helps me identify which pieces are present or absent in my current practice. Since I use the LMS of Moodle to teach blended /online classrooms, it comes equipped with open textbook, digital badges, and learning analytic tools that were mentioned in the reading. To improve my practice, I should try to learn and experiment with these tools as mentioned in the readings. First and foremost would be paying more attention to the learning analytical tools, such as tracking students’ time spent on the course; where are they spending the most time and what is it about those tasks that require so much of their attention and reflection.
“Head Experiment” by Kollage Kid is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Now What?Ā What are you going to do as a result of your experiences? What will you do differently? How will you apply what you have learned?
The take-away from this article is to re-examine my classes to see what aspects I can include or exclude. This is especially true of tools that I’ve avoided (ie. synchronous online meetings?) as I didn’t quite understand what how they are useful for student learning.
After three blogs and a video project, all that’s left is our nascent literature review before I begin embarking on that happy journey. With that in mind, where shall the destination of my research project be?
There it i-… oh.
Given that my current employment is at a school offering distance & blended learning, my colleagues and I were aiming aiming to examine a topic that is more relevant to us than for traditional brick-and-mortar schools. I had chosen the chapter on Flexible, Open, and Distance Learning because it sounded interesting and highly relevant to my practices. Unfortunately, my partner and I discovered that most of the content in the article to be fairly predictable, which is a given as we either implement those practices already or have already encountered those issues. In design a blended course for instance, we have long since realized that merely transforming the course content into a digital format was not effective for students to successfully engage with it. Furthermore, we still occasionally face the constraints of technology such as the learning management system (LMS) lacking a user-friendly interface or input for assessments (or students ‘forgetting’ how to use the LMS).
I was pleasantly surprised that Pratt and Kovacheva (2018) mentioned the issue of current research on distance or blended learning being largely at the post-secondary level, with limited information from applications at the secondary or elementary level. This was something my colleagues and I were wondering during on first semester when reading the comparative study by Yen et al (2018), where they compared traditional, online, and blended modals of the same university course, and found that there were no significant differences in learning between the three. For the high school population, I doubt that the same results would be reproduced as the students are generally not as self-motivated or responsible for their own learning; which is understandable as there is a trove of information on children’s brain development being woefully incomplete at that age (and for some adults, never seem to have finished). With that said, what areĀ some suggestions for designing a successful blended or online course? Oliver and Stalling (2014) had a suggestion that was highly reminiscent of the TPACK model, whereby teachers needed to be possess subject/content competency, pedagogical competency, technological competency, and teacher competency. While this was not new information, I was glad to see different researchers promoting the same model (and not that silly SAMR one). There was one interesting point that was mentioned, which is that teachers need access to on-going professional development (Powell et al, 2015; Vanderlinde, Aesaert, & Van Braak, 2004; and mentioned in handout summaries of other projects with no source cited). I fully agree with this suggestion as a new teacher, but I’ve noticed that none of the district workshops or Professional Development (Pro-D) seem to offer anything regarding this. My colleagues have explained that there is only the Canadian e-Learning conference once a year, and even that is mostly about pushing product services than structuring or framing online learning. So rather than focus on theoretical approaches / guidelines / suggested practices, as present throughout everyone’s presentations (teachers and students should be motivated to learn, build on strengths, understand technology, collaborate, bla-bla-blah), I’m far more interested in Pro-D workshop with practical applications. For example, here is the LMS called Moodle, here are some tools (assessments, textbook content, discussions forums, anonymous feedback), here are some ways we have used or re-purposed these tools for demonstrating Communication, Thinking, and Personal & Social Competencies. The biggest struggle I predict teachers have when deciding to tackle online or blended learning is the sheer amount of time needed to become familiar with the intricacies of the online system. More often than not, we use pre-published lessons as a way to quickly have a functional course and delve right into managing the class and assessing the students (your Honor, I plead guilty). It’s only a matter of time before this spirals into the “it works, why bother changing it”; hallmark of decrepit teachers who are well past their expiration date and you’re even wondering how they even stand upright.
THIS is a tablet.
In taking leadership to create a workshop, we would save individual teachers the time and effort needed to learn the basic foundations of the system by themselves, and re-invest that time into investigating more efficient, effective, or even innovative ways to use the same tools. This opens up more opportunities for richer collaboration, as the community have all moved past the hurdle of how do I use X tool? This leads us to the next step: how DO we create a professional workshop for online and blended learning, and what are the main topics that makes it appealing?
Since I dug my graveĀ supportingĀ Richard
Clark’s view that media offers “no learning
benefits” (1994) in myĀ previous blog, it’s
only natural that I continue to furnish my
new home with more debate-related decor.
This week we have the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition (SAMR) model versus the Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model. The former, by Romrell, Kidder, and Wood (2014), sees four different levels of integration of technology into mobile learning. The simplest of which is Substitution, whereby an educator merely replaces the medium of how the content is provided; such as a digital copy instead of print. Next is Augmentation, where some form of functional improvement has been added on. An example they provided was using SMS text message instead of flashcards in reviewing medical information for nursing students (Chuang and Tsao, 2013). Modification seems to be where the activity has been significantly re-designed using technology (Puentedura, 2006), such as learning from interactive computer simulations instead of textbook diagrams. At the apex, we have Redefinition, where technology has allowed for realization of a novel task; like seeing real-time translations with real-time smartphone translations (Liu and Tsai, 2013).
Why did I bother explaining each aspect of the model you ask? Because I have difficulty with the rigidity of four level system and how viewing the same task under a different lens could move it up or down hierarchy. Hamilton, Rosenberg, and AkcaogluĀ made a similar statement where the SAMR model “dismisses the complexity of teaching with technology by defining and organizing teachersā uses of technology in predefined ways” (2016). Looking at Liu and Tsai’s study where students were shopping with real-time translations of products the text, I would actually categorize this under Substitution where they could do the same activity by simply going to local foreign-goods store. I also question the purpose of this lesson: how accurate are those product translations (as we’ve heard the horrors Google Translate is capable of), and why would students bother learning English when they can just translate everything the other way into Chinese? Results showing gains in student engagement and learning could be due to the novelty of the experience whereby if this practice becomes ubiquitous, the same indicators would drop as it becomes routine and boring. A personal example I’ll share is my current class project of teaching embroidery. I can use virtual reality (VR) goggles as a Substitution method, or introduce 3-D printing technology / automated sewing machinery as a Redefinition of teaching textiles. At the end of the course, what have students learned and is it transferable? Those students will likely never be able to thread an actual needle in practice. So rather than classify technology into some generic classification, it is more important to understand the content we are trying, the most efficient pedagogical approach, and the capabilities of technology to bring our ideas to fruition. Which brings us to Tupac TPACK.
(I wish I could find a copyright-free image of the event)
Part of Dr. Dre’s Ph.D thesis in Educational Technology?
At the 2012 Coachella Valley Music and Art Festival, producer Dr. Dre managed to create aĀ ‘hologram’ of deceased rapper Tupac Amaru Shakur. If we apply a liberal amount of cross-discipline analysis, one can view this ‘innovative technology’ as a Redefinition, or at least, Modification of guest performances at concerts. Yet in actuality, this was aĀ Substitution trick where they applied a 19th century theater projection technique to produce a seemingly next-generation technology to engage the audience. So which SAMR model category should this belong to? Here is where I find the TupacTPACK to a better framework for assessing technology. In the analogy where Dr. Dr is our teacher, he possesses the content knowledge of a music festival (good taste in music?), the pedagogical knowledge (how to make an impact), and the technological knowledge (19th century theatrical tricks), and the ability to combine them all together in order to make an engaging event.
For myself, the TPACK model is a mental checklist in justifying the inclusion or exclusion of activities in my classes. If we re-summon the smartphone translation example and frame it in the context of helping Chinese students learn English, here’s how I would apply TPACK to evaluate the activity:
Technological knowledge of smartphones and apps that allow for real-time translations – Yes, existing technology and can operate it.
Pedagogical knowledge that letting students see the local environment in English helps them learn – No, it’s just a novel experience and is actually counterproductive to the necessity of learning English.
Content knowledge of practical vocabulary list that students will see in stores and the need to learn them – Yes, aware of basic vocabulary they will encounter.
Under TPACK, that activity would fit Technological Content Knowledge, and personally, I would choose to not utilize the smartphone technology because the pedagogical knowledge is undesirable, regardless of how others would brand it as crowning “Redefinition”Ā category under the SAMR model.Ā TPACK also helps me to evaluate my current understanding of the task, in order to select an appropriate technology (or what Clark calls media). Let’s say the context is myself teaching biomolecules (proteins, carbs, fats) in Biology 12, here is sample evaluation before I decide on the design:
Content Knowledge – familiarity with content competencies under the Biology 12 curriculum.
Pedagogical Knowledge – practices to provide meaningful engagement to the targeted class.
Technological Knowledge – list of available tools & my ability to operate them.
A tried-and-true method to teach this would be printing pages of notes and having students memorize 2D structures of biomolecules. This covers the content knowledge and uses simple technology to accomplish, but the lack of pedagogical knowledge of inefficient student learning using this approach. Switching the technology to utilize digital instead of print may make it more accessible, but does not address the issue of pedagogy. Thus, I need to re-evaluate that piece and perhaps teach using physical, interactive models whereby students experience hands-on construction and manipulation of pieces (repeatedly) to internalize the structure of say, fatty acids. The content remains the same while the pedagogy has improved, which leaves me the freedom of selecting an appropriate technology. In a face-to-face classroom, I would opt for traditional ball & stick models as it’s my belief that tactile sensations help improve learning; but I would choose digital simulations for those who are in an online classroom. These decisions are made based on reflecting on all three fields of knowledge, hence I am able to justify my choice of ordering more marshmallows and skewers instead of just doing everything digitally.
It should be clear that I side with Clark in the discussion about effects of media on learning; which feels awkward as I teach blended and online classes. This means I rely heavily on use of media such as videos, animations, and educational websites to deliver content to students while they are outside the classroom.
What does the Clark Say?
Richard E. Clark has repeatedly,stated his stance regarding use of media in teaching as “there (are) no learning benefits possible” (1994). He first published this statement from the results of his meta-analysis on decades of research on the influences of media on learning back in 1983. Clark sees media as a means of delivering instruction, using analogies like different delivery services having varying efficiencies, but has the same end result of the item being delivered. A similar analogy was that different forms of medicine, such as tablets, capsules, or liquid, all deliver the same active ingredient into the body. This was similar to Salomon’s (1979) finding that “it was not the medium which influenced learning but instead certain attributes of media that can be modeled by learners and can shape the development of unique ‘cognitive processes'”. I agree with these sentiments because it helps explain why old tried-and-true activities still work today even with our advances in technology such as computer animations or virtual reality. For instance, high school chemistry introduces cyclohexane as a two-dimensional drawing:
Kiddy cyclohexane
In university, we learn that same molecule in all its glory:
Teenage cyclohexane
Traditionally, poor undergrads are expected to derive the three-dimensional configuration from looking at two-dimensional drawing, and then ponder how substituents on the arms would align themselves in space to minimize repulsion for a stable configuration. Innovations in technology has created molecular model kits, or marshmallows and toothpicks, to allows for physical manipulation of an object for visualizing the cyclohexane shape.
Available from Amazon for $26.97Available from grocery stores for… $5?
Further advances in technology have made it possible for anyone at anytime and anywhere to render any moleculeĀ online (such as on MolView) for free.
Available for free… if you can build it.
Why did I show all these images? Because according to Clark, the flat textbook picture, the plastic or marshmallow model, and the online tool should be equally effective at helping students learn about the conformations of cyclohexanes. This sounds very counter-intuitive as most would argue the first method would be nowhere near as effective as the latter two methods, due to lack of interaction.
Kozma & Co.
Some opponents of Clark would identify the manipulative aspects of hands-on or digital models to be what Kozma (1994) calls the “processing capabilities” of the medium, whereby it can act upon the symbol system presented. Being able to freely rotate or translate the model allows learners to comprehend the structure when they were unable to do so from a static image. Kozma provided similar arguments through studies using computer-based learning program called ThinkerTools and educational videos called the Jasper Woodbury series, and found that students scored higher subsequent tests compared to the control group who used traditional teaching methods (Kozma, 1994). So this means that media does influence learning and I should re-think my stance right?
“Yo, (Kozma), I’m really happy for you, I’ma let you finish, but (Clark) had one of the best (arguments) of all time!” ~ Kanye West, VMA 2009. Edited for relevance.Ā
I agree with Clark’s (1994) direct rebuttal of Kozma’s findings because the control group did not receive the same scaffolded guidance compared to the experimental groups. Therefore, we have confounding variables affecting the result: was it the presentation of the information through video or simulation that accounted for the difference in assessment results, or was it the different pedagogical approach where one group were taught and practiced applying different skills throughout the problem processes? Using a medical analogy: consider a patient given pills and sent away with written directions, versus another who uses intravenous (IV) drip with round-the-clock care. If the latter shows greater improvements, we cannot conclude the IV treatment is more effective as the lack of care and scrutiny may have had an influences on the final results. My second argument is that in my example with molecular structures, does each method offer a unique attribute which results in acquisition of a unique knowledge? The learning gains from the physical and digital models are most likely due to the aspect of interactivity, whereby students are alleviated from mentally processing an image in their minds and instead focus on visually seeing the manipulation. Presenting the ability for visualization is the key instructional method that Clark defines as “the provision of cognitive processes or strategies that are necessary for learning but which students can not or will not provide for themselves” (1994). The implication from this is that as long as the instructional piece (such as visualization) is provided, learning will occur be it through a series perspective drawings, physical models, imaging software, or virtual reality.
This is crucial to my pedagogy for teaching online and blended classes where I can challenge the preconception that these alternate programs are more, or less, rigorous than full-time classes. If I can identify and present that vital instructional piece, then I will have more flexibility with my choice of media and not worry over how learning didn’t occur because a particular format was not used. This also allows me to keep my options open, that one day virtual or augmented reality that can fully simulate the five sense in order to let students experience a full-on (disastrous) lab experiment.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21ā29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7ā19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299087
Salomon, G (1979), Interaction of media, cognition and learning.Ā San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Thanks to our wonderful professor selecting such deliciously bite-sized nuggets of wisdom (truly, I appreciate the gentle start to course readings), I can effortlessly group the first. three. articles. under the banner of “Neat… and?”
Accurate depiction of knowledge gleaned from articles.
As coffee break reading material, it was mildly interesting to read how random writers are predicting future trends of technology in education, and offering little snippets of vague information about some new technology; but what was the point of the articles? The purpose of this exercise was not clear, thus motivation and interest was practically non-existent and I simply needed grit-my-teeth and quickly skim the articles to understand key terminology like augmented reality (AR),Ā cloud computing, orĀ learning science. This mindset persisted until the Top Hat article, which stated “[their] technology in education 2019 predictions are less about exactly what emerging technologies will be… but how they will be applied.” All of a sudden, I understood the purpose the author had in writing this article, and how their work may potentially be relevant to me. In addition, I found the article to be much more enjoyable as it provides concrete examples such as using AR to practice surgery planning. This was absent in previous articles where they merely spouted some completely generic advertisement like “applications such as HP Reveal have near-limitless uses and could be used in any curricular subject” (Tech & Learning, 2018); something I strongly disagreed with as it’s restricted to well-funded institutions that can afford a class set, and does not alleviate or enhance teaching of mechanical processes like two-digit multiplication. In reflecting upon this, I once again realized that my experiences as a student in this online Masters program is nearly identical to that of my own students in the distance learning courses I teach.
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the teacher in us all?
As a learner, I’ve recognized that my own learning is often dependent on knowing the purpose of the material and how it may benefit me in the future. It is from that framework do I maintain consciousness when engaging the literature, and have the mental capacity to find a topic of interest or inquiry to delve into. For example, I really enjoyed the Top Hat article so I began looking into who the writer was, where were the sources he used for the predictions, and more importantly, what other article has he written. This was not done for the any of the earlier articles because I simply could not care enough after having satisfied the expectation of reading the article. What’s worse is that some articles either lacked the references for me to search, or lacked credentials for the article to be considered worthwhile. Case in point: in Lambda Solutions‘ disclaimer, they note that their article was written by some fellow who was “interested in culture, education and fiction” (wait… that last part worries me), which I’m not sure how their opinion can be considered as the “expert insight” that their advertising in the preceding sentence. Furthermore, the writer’s “views and opinions expressed [in the article] belong to the guest blogger alone, and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or opinions of Lambda Solutions.”Ā This is painful for me as I feel the article’s purpose was to provide an expert’s view on educational technology trends and promote the company’s services, which it failed because the expert was not an expert. Knowing my motivators and being able to find them helps me succeed at learning, which becomes my task to inspire the same in those I teach.
As a teacher, my role in student education is to have them understand their own reasons for learning (purpose), recognize what they need to succeed (benefit), and develop a strategy to accomplish that (more benefits). The best method I can think of is to offer my own learning process as a functional example. I need to ensure the purpose of my decisions, activities, or content are visible to the students, and I’m able to justify the benefit of engaging in them. Being a teacher at a distance-learning center, this means I have more flexibility in the sense that I have the optionĀ and access to some of the technological trends being mentioned, such as cloud computing, online presence and learning communities, self-paced learning, or access rich multimedia for our diverse learners. With this in mind, the articles I read becomes relevant as I have options under consideration for “meaningful integration of new technologies… aligning to best instructional practices” (Holland and Holland, 2014) into my classes. This simplifies my work down to weighing the pros against the cons of adopting a new piece of technology and whether it provides an authentic, engaging learning experience, or becomes a simple tokenism having cutting-edge technology. This is why that I would need to familiarize and assess for myself with the practicality of those new innovations, or study how other have tried making it relevant in their pedagogy,Ā before agreeing or disagreeing the effectiveness of these trends. For instance, the easiest to implement would be online discussions or debate in forums as opposed to in-class ones. While the benefits include allowing remote learners to participate and letting students contribute at their own pace of learning, one common problem I’ve seen is the misinterpretation of words (due to lack of seeing facial and body cues); or that the discussion peters out due to participants posting at different times thus lacking that immediate consideration of ideas and subsequent feedback. Another example would be using virtual reality (VR) or AR to provide a sense of “hands-on” learning through remote connection or in under-equipped classroom. As a traditional science teacher, I still value and support authentic in-person laboratory experiments simply because I feel the alternatives cannot fully emulate that holistic experience of: the weight and burns from holding a hot beaker, the sight and sounds of the wrong solution being added, or simply experience working with lab partners.
Looking at the whole cartoon, it symbolize the need to examine research (characters) in detail to understand the findings (the joke). My background in sciences presented a biased view that published research articles have reliable findings because it made it through peer-reviews that would have pointed out flaws in its design. Yet McAteer (2013) pointed out examples in their article where researchers deliberately selected data which support their hypothesisĀ or manipulated their data to produce a favorable result. Combined with the infamous Wakefield (1998) study that ālinkedā measles, mumps, and rubella vaccinations to autism, I had to re-evaluate my belief in published articles.
OāCathain’s (2010) proposed framework to assess the quality of mixed method research is perhaps the most detailed criteria list Iāve encounter in this course. However, I favored the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool to be more concise and easier to apply. Another useful tool is Boote and Beile’s (2005) literature review rubric, which helps readers assess whether the researchers have a full understanding of the terminology and current understanding in their field of research; as opposed to following standard methodology without comprehension its necessity. In previous blog posts (here and here), I applied those tools to articles after an initial reading and found changed my perception of the research afterwards. In the former case I questioned the validity of the findings due to vagueness in the report, and the latter lacked a broader inspection in their literature review. Going forward, I have a better appreciation for reading research articles which directly translates into a better understanding for teaching the scientific method as a science teacher.
Appreciating Research ā as a Teacher
As educators, we receive a lot of resources and workshops on how to improve our practices. Being caught up in the energy of presentation and potential to improve our classes,Ā it is tempting to implement innovations immediately. However, I believe we need to examine those ideas much like how we examine research and its findings. For example, we discussed how classes can incorporate usage of social media such as Twitter or blogs to foster student relations and interactions; and saw how it was successful in its implementation and purpose in our own Mastersā cohort. However, it is important to have reservations about re-structuring our own classes to model this without doing prior research such as seeking administrative or parental approval. Both those parties, and teachers themselves, need to keep the safety of the students first, thus require examination of whether those services adhere to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA). After looking into those aspects, there is still another important party to consider: the students. In the last school year, I experimented with incorporatingĀ school districtās Idea-X challenge into my Applied Design, Skills and Technology (ADST) class. The challenge aligned with the courseās curricular goals, so I let the class decide whether to pursue this at the start of the second semester. The school approved it, my students were interested, and parent consent forms were submitted; everything was on-track until the first information session. The organizers asked each team to create a group Instagram account, a social media service I know most of my students use. Their motivation dropped faster than Facebook share prices in 2018 and some even avoided class.
Given that I saw students twice a week and have taught them for roughly three months back then, I sorely underestimated how well I knew my class. Their unwillingness to have a digital presence outside of their closed circle, combined with some unclear expectations of the group account, made the whole exercise flop despite my attempts to offer social media support. Looking back now, rather than treating that experience as a one-off occurrence or giving up, the source of error from not researching deeper about my studentsā comfortability with social media will be a key consideration for future activities. I also feel better about my decision now in framing my willingness to drop the project as exemplifying learner-centered pedagogy. as opposed to insisting upon it because it meets curricular competencies.
Open Mindset ā as a Researcher
Looking back at the first comic, I see myself as the mouse in the corner making fun of non-traditional (constructivism) approaches to research. This meant that I placed a greater significance on studies that quantify and directly prove causation than those describing social observations and analysis, which might be open to interpretation. This mindset changed from two realizations: (i) quantitative approach being unsuitable for social research, and (ii) other methodology being equally as rigorous as quantitative studies. The second aspect was heavily influenced by Onwu and Mosimege (2004), where they clearly answered how oral practices in traditional medicine is subject to the same replicability that is expected in the scientific method; lack of empirical documentation should not make it less valid than Western science (discussed in previous blog). To wean myself off the superfood that is quantitative research, I began exploring a more balanced diet such as mixed methods (includes familiarity of traditional positivism and feasibility of constructivism in social research), and action research (blending of education theory and practice). As of now, action research seems to be the ideal path forward as it focuses on improvement of practice, which is essential to myself as an educator and one of two main reasons that I enrolled in the Masterās program.
I have always viewed myself as a flexible teacher in being open to new technology, pedagogy, and student suggestions, but I still find moments like the researchers in the first cartoon where I simply use modern technology to do the same thing as before. It struck me like thunderbolt and lightning, and was very, very frightening that I tossed a pile of notes at the students and expected them to regurgitate it on an exam before the end of the year. My main goal over the summer break was to spare them their life from this monstrosity and look for more engaging ways to connect the content to conversations or critical reflections. I also had to figure out what Aboriginal education is, and how to include it into classes as part of BCās new curriculum. Luckily, the course readings have shown me that each of these individual ideas are interconnected, and not like Beelzebub has these tasks put aside for me, and just for me. Firstly, the availability of resources online is not exclusive to online and blended courses, but rather a movement towards open pedagogy in education. Students in face-to-face classes can also access these resources, such as online textbooks and video sites, providing a breadth of available material. Open access allows teachers and students to engage in learner-centered pedagogy and not be restricted by the availability of resources or expertise. The latter point involves students (or through teacher moderation) connecting with specialists in field via social media or simple email, to address their curiosity. One example of this being done effectively is at the Pacific School of Innovation and Inquiry, as mentioned by Jeff Hopkins in our meetings. These interactions may also serve as a learning opportunity for students regarding professional digital citizenship, such as curating and communicating with individuals online; a necessary skill that I might be able to model in my quest in writing a research project. Turning to course design, a correctly scaffolded model of this personalize inquiry would circumvent the issue of online education being ālow context so that it can be consumed by any user, anywhereā (Tessaro, Restoule, Gaviria, Flessa, Lindeman, and Scully-Stewart (2018). Finally, all these parts can be woven under the banner of Indigenous pedagogy, whereby focus of learning is through conversation (be it synchronous or asynchronous) as opposed to assembly-line construction without seeing what the final product will be. It turns out my summer homework will be less strenuous under a natural, holistic lens rather than compartmental; something students may notice when examining their own learning under this model.
But before tackling these ideas for the upcoming school year, I need to look after my own health and wellness. So for now:
Trevor Mackenzie’s (@trev_mackenzie) discussion around implementing Inquiry in the classroom was something I’ve been introduced to in my teaching PDP program. The concept was one that I had intended weave into my courses for the new school year. While that was the plan, I admit I did have concerns with the level of depth versus breadth I should design. This is where Trevor framing the Inquiry process as a swimming pool gave me the inspirational nudge I needed (into the pool).
This sketch representing how a teacher can gradually remove scaffolds to give learners more independence is featured in Inquiry Mindsets. (Courtesy Trevor MacKenzie and Rebecca Bathurst-Hunt). Retrived from https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/50620/how-to-ease-students-into-independent-inquiry-projects
It was helpful in clarifying that I shouldn’t fill the course with just “Free Inquiry” projects; that repeatedly tossing them into deep end will help them swim.
Figured it out, kid.
I believe my approach would be valid if, and only if, students have had prior experience with the Inquiry model or had I taught them previously (which is unlikely as this is still in development). The scaffolding design is ideal as I could re-arrange units with more abstract concepts, or those I predict students to have a difficult time with, to have “Structured Inquiry”. Meanwhile, easier units can use Free Inquiry format to help students find their own interests and curiosities. With that in mind, my remaining worry is how apply this model into content-laden courses such as Biology 12, where it’s largely based on brute-force memorization.Ā
“Curiousity” by elycefeliz is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
On another thread regarding Inquiry, I was delighted to learn about Jeff Hopkins’ (@hopkinsjeff) Pacific School of Innovation and Inquiry which implements a student driven, open inquiry model program for grades 9 through 12. To be precise, the knowledge that my colleagues and I who are interested in introducing cross-curricular inquiry have an example to draw from; as well as a place to visit for Pro-D days. I fully agree with Jeff’s observation that learning as kids and as adults due to simple curiosity is much more effective than the forced factory-mandated process of learning prescribed content we see occurring in traditional schools. It would make more sense to consistently apply that approach through K-12 and into post-secondary (latter is debatable), rather than having them forget and have to re-learn how to pursue their passion.
While this shift would undoubtedly be a long and difficult process, as active teachers have precious little time to learn and consider how to overhaul their practices, we luckily have schools willing to act as experimental trials for the rest of the province. As Jeff himself mentioned, he wanted his school to be the template for other district or public schools to model after.
“the early bird (365.258)” by splityarn is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
I believe the school I’m working at would be able to implement cross-curricular inquiry in our academic classes.Ā First, we are a choice school where a large proportion of our students find the traditional classroom challenging; so this alternative would work much better for them. Secondly, we offer Blended and Online courses so our students have a lot of independent study time throughout the week where they are not (completely) restricted to the same pace as their classmates. Lastly, we have small class and staff size. Small class sizes allows us to feasibly build relations with each student and provide individual guidance, whilst limiting the increase in time spent marking within manageable levels (major downside to not using scantrons). Few staff members means each department only has 1 or 2 teachers so it’s not a huge undertaking for the departments to collaborate across curricula, or worry that different teachers teaching the same course are using different pedagogies. We’ve already come up with potential cross-curricular inquiry with my favourite so far being between Foods and Biology (mine is: what are the effects & ideal time to salt and dry fish before cooking?)
“Curing salmon” by Miia Sample is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
This week was also inspiring in my understanding and application of Indigenous ways of knowing into my classes. The two big focus points in my PDP program were incorporation of Inquiry / Problem-Based-Learning (PBL) and Aboriginal Education (AbEd) as part of Ministry requirements. My initial feelings was to just have them teach me how to teach first, which Shauneen Pete pointed out in her book, was the common response of in-service teachers’ aversion to widening their perspective on teaching. So in taking a step away from the standard Eurocentric pedagogy, I came to realize that I already deviated from those practices and have included aspects of Indigenous pedagogy. Things such as building relations with students and letting them influence some direction of class are prime examples of this, as opposed to the content-focused methodology where the teacher holds all the power. In re-framing the adjustments we make to help students succeed, we are effectively promoting Indigenous ways of knowing already.
I used the film, “Kitchen Stories” as an assessment of my understanding with research methodologies to date; focusing on Researched & Research.
Also, this might be a fun way to teach/assess units in Sciences; point out related concepts or in films / movies (connections to abstract ideas).
Regarding Researched:
The film did not mention why Norwegians volunteers were chosen (poor quality research! not explaining sampling rationale), but it’s clear they did not understand how their work might be perceived by the participants (resentment to Swedish observers). When applied to modern study on say, Indigenous Knowledge Systems, a “settler” researcher may face or present an uncomfortable presence when observing Indigenous healers at work. I feel researchers may need to their awareness of different contexts and perspectives when conducting social research, recognizing how their methodologies may not as neutral as it appears.
The researched (observed) in the film can also be a metaphor advocating for Indigenous pedagogy; how learning occurs as an collaborative effort between the learner and teacher.Ā The defining phrase for me was when Isak said “How can we understand each other without communicating?” In traditional “factory process” content-driven pedagogy (traced back to industrialization & mandatory education), this would never occur as the teacher disseminates knowledge to the student vessels. Issues with this model has prompted the paradigm to shift to Inquiry-based approach, of are already present in Indigenous pedagogy. I believe a learner-focused approach would benefit both members. Students can self-advocate concerns and learning intentions, while being open to suggestions in the form of conversations. Teachers no longer worry over engagement or management, and may gain knowledge from the students as well. This applies to research as well: researchers could gain a lot more information in asking participants compared to simple observations (seeing Isak not answer the phone vs asking about it and understanding it’s due to costs).
Changes regarding Research
Coming from a Western science background, I agree I was believer in positivism because of it’s detailed observations, interpretation, replicability, and use in prediction modeling. After reading Onwu & Mosimege (2004), that has changed a bit, that is I’ve recognized my bias in viewing Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) poorly because it has not been empirically studied and validated. Traditional medicine being passed down in oral history (ethnography) and in practice makes it no less rigorous than documenting the same process in print (if it didn’t work, won’t be passed down). A personal example would be my unfavorable view of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). I held Western Medicine to be more ‘valid’ because the language used is clear, uses trial & error in controlled studies, and provides cause & effect. Where as TCM says things like you have too much ‘fire’ in your body? What the heck? However, TCM is an accepted as a practice today and parts of it have been tested and explained in detail using Western Science. This goes to prove Onwu & Mosimege’s point that a combination of both system would be ideal. I believe it’s possible that traditional or IKS can help guide Western Science in a novel direction, while the latter can help explain specific interactions or improve the former’s practices. Going forward, I feel more comfortable with the inclusion of IKS into courses (specifically in sciences) because I have an authentic understanding of how it connects to the content; as opposed to it being a checklist item. Specifically, that methods of assessment and validations may look different, but one is not more rigorous than the other; and that a combination of the two would provide a more holistic picture. Consider two students: one consistently scores 90% by themselves,Ā whereas the other worked intensively with the teacher to understand their misconceptions whilst overcoming crippling anxiety to reach 86%. Reporting solely on Proficiency (percentage / letter grade) would encapsulate the dedication and resilience of the latter, while reporting for Progress (anecdote / comments) would disregard the former’s understanding of themselves and how they learn best. Teachers generally include both when reporting out, so why couldn’t social researchers do the same? Bringing it to my own focus for a potential research direction: using a mixed method model to provide a more meaningful summary of student learning achievement and experiences in distance-education courses.
This week, I decided to focus on reviewing literature reviews using Boote and Beile’s scoring rubric (pg.8) as a means to familiarize myself with what quality literature review should encompass. I chose George Veletsianos’ article simply because it clearly states the section for literature review.
Coverage
Justification of reviews: 1/4
No statements regarding the exclusion (or inclusion) for selection of article reviews, and instead mentions “little is known about faculty harassment online” (Veletsianos et al, 2018). I interpreted that as he’s aware there’s probably some research on it, but didn’t try very hard to look for it. For instance, he notes several other studies looking at women’s experience online, and even Duggan (2014) finding “women who are in the public eye or who use technology to promote their workāsuch as scholarsāare placed at even greater risk”. Now examining Duggan’s in detail, I noticed it examined people between 18-24 years old; probably lacking faculty members. But wait, wasn’t George focused onĀ scholars? Wouldn’t this age group not include some novice scholars who are in their post-secondary studies? This further makes me question what he defines as “scholar”, which he doesn’t explain until later. I strongly believe he should have clarified his terminology sooner, which helps support his claims of having few existing research on them. This was why I gave him a mark of 1 out of 4.
On a side note, it’s hilarious reading his assumptions of the online world being egalitarian. It makes one worry about how out-of-touch researchers are with the rest of the world (to all tenured profs teaching first-year undergraduate courses: we have no idea what language you’re speaking).
Synthesis
What has been/needs-to-be done: 3/4
Critically examined how existing research found women experiencing more online harassment than men, but his target group (“scholars”) have yet to been studied. He does not introduce new methodology, just a need to apply same methods to different group.
Topic in broad scholarly literature: 3/4
Raised issue of online harassment curtailing women’s participation, leading lack of diversity in future literature.Ā Doesn’t offer any methods such as examining publication ratios based on gender to assess whether it has occurred.
History of topic: 1/4
Does not discuss history of online harassment or history of coping strategies. For instance, has this issue been persistent or increased since the introduction of the internet? Is there a favored coping strategy or is it changing?
Defined harassment, scholars, and categories of coping strategies employed by female scholars. Scholars definition perhaps differs from general usage (perhaps my bias in extending scholars to graduate students; given that Bootes & Beile found dissertations that were akin to high school essays). Did not discuss or resolve ambiguities in definitions.
Important variables relevant to topic:Ā 2/4
Suggested that internet anonymity helps foster toxic behavior, as well as lack or inefficient moderation. In addition, the different strategies to cope with harassment.
Gained new perspective: 1/4
Generally accepted current literature on the prevalence of disproportionate harassment faced by women online. Which is rather welcoming compared to his 2013 article viewing the world(wide web) with rosy glasses.
Methodology
Pros/cons of methodologies: 2/4
Mainly describes findings from other literature, sometimes provides method employed in those studies (ie. survey).
(Regarding his own study) Does not elaborate why methodologies were acceptable, such as iterative interviews (merely common standard) or sample size of 14 (because they “felt” answer was found).
Connecting ideas to methodology: 2/4
Described research methods, but not critiqued their strengths or weaknesses.
Significance
Practical benefit: 2/4
Adds to existing knowledge – suggest methods to prepare for or cope with online abuse.
Theoretical benefit: 2/4
Research would add to existing knowledge – show evidence of online harassment and perhaps development of new coping strategies or policies.
Rhetoric
Eloquence: 3/4
Article was fairly well written and used language that, for the most part, would be understood by the general population.
~Quick assessment of the overall article quality~
Researcher: Covered by George introducing himself to our class. Researched: Covered by literature review, assessed above. Readers: I’m honestly have trouble with the significance of theĀ research itself as it focuses on Experiences and Coping Strategies of female scholars, as opposed to practical solutions to deal with harassment in general. From past research about online harassment in general, one could safely assume that it would extend/include scholars as well. George’s finding suggest institutions provide training to help navigate social media; seems very un-intuitive. Why not create safeguards to prevent harassment instead of just preparing for harassment? A moreĀ useful study would have been implementation of safeguards to prevent or reduce harassment and it’s effectiveness. Research: we’ve all read the article… right? š
